Why do we in the Christian churches and churches of Christ use the bible as the only accurate guide? What about the Veda, the Hindu bible, or the Qur'an the Muslim bible. What makes the bible the one and only? How about the claims of the JW's and the assertion that the "protestant" bible is corrupted, or again the book of mormon are we to believe that? I know a preacher that has studied with Muslims and their attack on the bible was well thought out and it made him question his faith. And this guy is learned in the scriptures and apolegetics.

It is clear that the world is desperately trying to destroy the bible, from all aspects. And not from the little guys, but big name Phd's and every media giant. So why do we believe its pages, or do we only believe some of it. Is the bible 100% accurate, grammatically, archaeologically, historically, Has it been preserved 100% doctrinally for all these thousands of years?

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2000

Answers

I would like to answer this question in more depth in the near future, but for now, the following is an exerpt from a conversation I had with a friend who, while brought up Catholic, had abandoned Catholicism and become involved in Wicca (witchcraft), but at this point in her life was seriously seeking God and questioning the trustworthiness of the Bible. I hope it helps.

---

I have been discussing the Bible for 6 months now and the more I talk about it the more I discover that I don't believe any of it. A lot of it is just good moral stories that never really happened.

Good moral stories, yes. Never really happened? Doubtful. The Bible has been shown through archaeology to be historically accurate. To quote a couple of archaeologists, if I may: "Biblical archaeology's greatest significance is that it has corroborated many historical records in the Bible." (Manahem Mansoor, professor emeritus at University of Wisconsin at Madison, founder of the Department of Hebrew and Semitic studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the Madison Biblical Archaeological Society.) "A fundamental question asked all over the world during the last few centuries is, Is the Bible true? Do the narratives related in it represent real events and are the figures mentioned there real people who lived and acted as the Biblical text tells us they did? In general, the evidence of material culture fits the Biblical account ... Hence, archaeological data are consistent with the view that ... the Biblical account is, in general, true and historically based." (David Ussishkin, professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. Both these quotes are from Biblical Archaological Review, May/June 1995.)

A lot of it is borrowed literature from other cultures and beliefs. Some of it is just plain old myth.

As far as borrowed literature from other cultures; have you considered the possibility that the literature of both cultures borrowed on a common earlier narrative (and that the other cultures' myths, rather than the Bible's, have been corrupted from actual accounts, as archaeological data seems to indicate)? Regarding "just plain old myth," the fact that certain myths (of an ancient garden paradise and a flood where a handful of men and animals escaped by boat, landing on a tall mountain, etc.) are so universal, being found in almost every culture around the world, tends to indicate that such myths have their basis in actual pre-historic events.

The Bible seems full of hate and overly zealous men.

Exactly a point that should make you seriously consider it as divine Truth. If the Bible were not divinely inspired, but were merely the writings and myths of man, we would expect the people to be depicted far more favorably; their sins, failures and pecadillos glossed over or ignored. But the Bible unashamedly paints their ugly portraits, faults and all.

I don't like the God protrayed in the Bible or the psychology that is used to get you to believe in it. It seems phony and false to me. It imposes rules that could never be kept and a God that has nothing better to do than punish you if you don't meet his unobtainable demands that he places on you.

Now you're starting to get the whole point! (Without even realizing it!)

The Bible starts out with the entire world in a garden state, with man and all of nature in harmony and peace, with each other and with God. Through man's rebellion (instigated by Lucifer), that peace has been broken. The whole point of the Old Testament was to get us to see that we could not get back in harmony with God by our own devices.

God is perfectly holy, and only by being perfect ourselves could we hope to attain this. "There is no one righteous, not even one ... For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God, ..." (Romans 3:10,23). The "rules that could never be kept" were meant to show we could never attain peace with God on our own steam. As the scripture says, God is so holy, so pure, that even our righteous acts are like filthy rags to him. And good deeds do not, can not, make up for bad ones! (If you get pulled over for speeding, can you say, "Well, I helped an old lady across the street today, so that should make up for it?" Of course not!)

Yet as great and glorious as God is, He is still knowable, personable, and approachable, and He Himself desired to bridge this awesome gulf. Which is why, as opposed to myth, God did -- in fact -- enter the world Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. He decided to offer Himself, freely, as a peace offering; all we need do is accept His gift. "... and are declared righteous freely by His grace, through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:23). The life, death, and resurrection of Christ is a living, breathing, historical fact. Hence, Christianity not only offers a vital experience and relationship with the divine -- as well as purpose and meaning in life -- it does so on objectively verifiable grounds.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2000

John-

So the bible is accurate with history you say, but how accurate? What about science is the bible consistent with parts of evolution? Is it not true that God created the universe and Darwin's theory validly explains the change that took over form there? And correct me if I am wrong, but we can have a accurate historical document outside of the bible, so how does that make the bible the accurate word of God? I am not sure here, but is it not possible for the book of Mormon to be historically accurate, the same with the Qur'an correct? So if I am correct then having an accurate historical document is just evidence that supports a theory, but does not make it law?

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2000

Mike,

The basic rule that was used to assemble the Bible, is to include those books that Christ and the apostles quoted or wrote or accepted as scripture. Within the Bible, the internal authority is clearly stated in several places. Historical accuracy is another issue. Something may be an accurate history, but that does not make it the Word of God. The Bible is historicly accurate, but it is not written to be a history or science text. It is written to tell His story - for our benefit and to His glory.

You wrote, "I am not sure here, but is it not possible for the book of Mormon to be historically accurate, the same with the Qur'an correct?" If you mean they have equal authority with scripture, no. If you mean they could have some accurate history, that is possible but truth should be judged based on scripture. In fact, because they are written to teach another gospel it may be dangerous to study them beyond what is necessary to identify the false teachings; so that a strong witness can be presented when you deal with followers of these distortions of the truth.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2000

The Book of Mormon is something I know a little about. The Bible has a mountain of documentary, historical and archaeological evidence underlying it. As for the Book of Mormon, not one city site, inscription, road, or even coin has ever been found to back up its story, and no other copies of this "ancient work" exist, we only have Joseph Smiths word (for what that's worth). The Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society both publish papers stating that the Book of Mormon has no basis in historical fact and it is not used as source material for New World archaeology in any way whatever.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Mike:

You have asked several questions that would take many hours of discussion to answer but I will briefly comment upon a few of them in this post and recommend that we separately discuss these questions in detail if there is any true interest in the answers.

You have asked:

Why do we in the Christian churches and churches of Christ use the bible as the only accurate guide?

The primary reason is that the Bible is the only book that we have conclusive evidence of its being inspired of God. Now you and I can discuss this evidence, if you are truly interested and if you sincerely doubt it, but it will take time and must be approached in a systematic way. If you are interested in that discussion you can contact me by e-mail and we can organize a reasonable approach to the subject.

It does seem that when someone ask these questions they merely want to question the Bible but they do not think to question the other books that claim to be inspired of God. But, to your credit, you have asked about them with your following words:

What about the Veda, the Hindu bible, or the Qur'an the Muslim bible. What makes the bible the one and only?

Now that is a good question Mike! What about the Veda and the Quran? I recommend that we also examine their claims to inspiration and the accuracy of their transmission and the accuracies of their historical claims. Many do not know that many passages of the Bible are simply quoted almost verbatim in the Qurran and the book of Mormon also quotes the Bible etc. Nevertheless, the claims for the inspiration of these books, with the exception of the places where they quote the Bible, are very weak and unsubstantiated. If you were to examine honestly all of the arguments to support the inspiration of these books that you mention you would immediately see the reason that the Bible is the ONLY one that can be proven to actually have been inspired of God.

Now I am only making these assertions at the moment to be brief but we can scrutinize the arguments that are offered to support the inspiration of all of these books one by one and submit them to the exact same test that the Bible has been subject to for these thousands of years and you will be amazed to see just how quickly they crumble under the scrutiny. If you are willing to do this I will be happy to join in helping to examine them. But it does appear that you only want to question the Bible and are using the existence of these other books as a means of implying that the Bible is no better than them. The Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Veda, are all severely lacking and completely unable to stand the same test that the Bible has withstood over these many thousands of years. It is interesting indeed that ONLY the Bible has been subjected to this kind of scrutiny. I mean by this that the world at large seems to ONLY attack the Bible vigorously, though unsuccessfully. They have no such interest in attacking the Qurran, or the Veda, or Buddhist scriptures. A better question to ask would be  Why is the Bible the ONLY book placed under such detailed scrutiny while these other books are treated so lightly? It is ignorance of all of these books that causes such. So I recommend that we take all of these books and apply to them the same severe test that has been applied to the Bible and compare just how well they fair after such scrutiny and I am certain that you will see the real reason that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice in the Church of Christ. But this will require some time and some real diligent work but if you are interested in the answer to your question I will be happy to assist in such an effort. Contact me via e-mail and let me know if you would like to join with me in organizing and providing such a study.

Then you asked:

How about the claims of the JW's and the assertion that the "protestant" bible is corrupted, or again the book of mormon are we to believe that?

You act as if these matters have never been dealt with. But I can assure you that they have been discussed over and over ad nauseum throughout this nation and you will find few among the Christians where I worship that are unable to deal with the false doctrines and extreme contradictions of the false teachers among the JWs who claim that Christ is Michael the archangel or a created being" and that he is not God. Or the Mormons who cannot prove the Joseph Smith actually saw an Angel called Moroni and received a revelation from God. The clear and irreconcilable contradictions between the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great price, and Doctrine and Covenants, and the writings of Joseph the Seer, are so glaringly apparent that only one who is completely unlearned could place them on the same level as the Bible.

But you have opened a subject that will require a great deal of work and it could be profitable but as you can see we cannot give brief and flippant answers to your numerous questions. It is easier to ask questions than it is to answer them. I have noticed in this forum that many are happy to ask questions but have no desire to do the hard work of diligently seeking the answers to them. I have also noticed that those who ask them will seldom stick around to hear the answer, which indicates that they were not interested in the first place. Therefore, if you are truly interested in these things lets get busy in an organized way to do this work of examining these claims of inspiration given by the Muslims for their Quran, and the Mormons for their several claims of inspiration for all that Joseph Smith wrote, ect.

Then you tell us of a preacher that you know who just could not deal with this matter as follows:

I know a preacher that has studied with Muslims and their attack on the bible was well thought out and it made him question his faith. And this guy is learned in the scriptures and apolegetics.

Now I just cannot make any sense out of the reason that you mention this. Are you trying to imply that your questions are unanswerable because someone whom you claim is learned in the scriptures was made to question his faith because he could not answer these well thought out arguments that were presented by the Muslims against the Bible? I do not know if this person is learned or not. If he was so easily moved by the arguments against the scriptures I would have my doubts concerning just how learned he really is. But that is all quite beside the point, isnt it? Why do not you just have him come to this forum and tell us just what arguments were offered that were so well thought out that he questioned his faith? Let us see the arguments and judge them instead of merely judging them for us and expecting us to accept your conclusions. We cannot accept that such is true just because you say so now can we? You claim that their arguments were well thought out. Well, how do you know that they were so well thought out? Did this preacher share them with you or did you hear them yourself? Why do not you just present those arguments if you think they are so well thought out instead of merely casting a shadow that implies that they were so powerful that they made this preacher question his faith. We do not now nor will we ever question our faith just because some so-called learned preacher has decided to question his. Let us hear the arguments and determine just how strong they are. I have a friend, a dear friend, who is a Muslim from Pakistan and I have discussed this matter with him often and I can tell you that I have not heard a single argument from him or any of his Muslim leaders that was in the least bit difficult to answer! So I can only stand amazed that this so-called learned preacher was brought to doubt his faith by the arguments of these Muslims. But I cannot tell if their arguments were the same as those that I have heard from the Muslims that I know unless you present them. But I can tell you that the arguments that I have heard from the Muslims are anything but well thought out. So I cannot accept your idea that the Muslims that you speak of have well thought out arguments that were so compelling as to cause anyone that is truly learned in the Christian faith to doubt it. So maybe you can either present those arguments for us if you heard them personally or you can have this learned preacher to come into this forum and present them to us. Or better yet, why not invite those same Muslims to come into this forum and try their arguments here. I am more than willing to engage them in a formal discussion of these matters. However, we will reserve our judgment of the strength of the Muslim argument against the Bible until you can find one that is willing and able to make such arguments with us. We do not accept it just because you say it is so strong without even allowing us to hear the arguments. I do not say this to insult you, my friend. I say it because we are to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.

We do doubt just how learned this man is in the area of apologetics as well. You say he is learned and capable in these areas but you do not prove it. Why not ask him to come in here and demonstrate to us just how learned he is in the area of apologetics by making arguments against the Bible that these Muslims made and see if he can succeed in convincing us that he is learned in such matters and that the Muslim arguments are truly powerful? Maybe you are learned enough to make the argument for the Muslims. If not maybe you can find a Muslim that is learned enough to present a viable challenge to Christianity on this subject. But for you to expect us to believe that our faith in the Bible as the very and only word of God has been successfully challenged simply because you make the claim is far from sufficient to convince us that your claim is true. This habit of asserting without proof in this forum is terribly frustrating to say the least. If you really want to prove that the Muslims have such well thought out arguments you will have to do more than merely assert that such is the case. You will have to PROVE it. This is very different and requires more effort than mere assertion.

I do believe that the number of questions that we receive in this forum would be greatly reduced if all who make them would be required to at least attempt to offer evidence that they believe supports their assertions before being allowed to post them. You would have certainly asked less if you had even attempted to prove your assertions. But instead you are allowed to ask enough questions in one paragraph that it would take months of hard writing and research to answer. Now this is fine if we then proceed to discuss those questions by offering evidence that can be forthrightly examined concerning the question. However, we seldom get to this. What happens is that we offer arguments to prove that our answer is correct and they are normally ignored so that the questioner can make more assertions without proof for us to answer and aain have or arguments merely ignored. Now,I am willing to do such work but not unless the opposing side is also required to do similar work.

Now Mike it does appear to me that you do not genuinely doubt that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice but that you are merely trying to open us up to discuss this subject so that we can all be prepared to answer those who do sincerely doubt it or you are trying to get us to discuss it because you know that some may be reading this forum that would benefit from such a discussion. If this is your intent I can understand but at least make a strong case for the opposing side so that they can believe that they have been fairly represented. Assertions without proof do not make for a strong case. So if you are playing the devils advocate at least play your part well and offer some strong arguments instead of feeble assertions.

A. Christian,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Lee

Thank you for the answer! It appears you took some time to write all that and it is appreciated. First I would like to address my position. I have not one particle of doubt in any area concerning the bible as being the ONLY word of God. 100% accurate! Not because I was taught that way with no evidence and or proof to back it up, but from many hours of learning and scrutinizing and looking for contradictions. And I am capable of defending my belief, directly the result of knowledgable and capable teaching and obeying the scriptures. But my questions were purposely shy of conceding my position, although I presumed that it would not take long before someone would attack my questions instead of dealing with them. You did deal very briefly with some of the evidence and you are on the right track and even mentioned something I will use again, but you did not get to the proof. Which would not take long, just a brief description is all I ask and we can give many people something to go on in their own studies. As I expected people have been unable to answer this very important question, especially in the Christian churches and Churches of Christ. That is one of the very reasons that we are having the problems we are in the Lord's church. You never mentioned once what makes the bible the one and ONLY. Just some of the evidence. And I am not going to prompt you. Please no offense intended, I see that you are a veteran so you should be able to swallow direct comments.

And let me briefly defend, a well respected close friend, Christian, preacher of the Gospel, and capable leader. I obviously left out specific facts, that I in turn could glean what people would have to offer in the area defending the faith once delivered, without conceding my position. And not once did I make a comment that would compromise my faith. So when this preacher was dealing with the Muslims the setting was many Muslims against one preacher. Secondly fielding questions from everyone there from the top of your head is difficult. And some questions were posed that have never been dealt with before, and being a truth seeker this individual, when unable to answer certain questions he would have to tell them he would "definetely study it and get back to them."And what resulted was them being unable to answer, and them being put on the defensive. And they could not contend with the arguments he presented, although he was physically out numbered. Now these are not offered as excuses, but just depicting the account of what happened. Unfortunately in one respect , no Muslims were rescued from Satan's grasp, But one preacher learned myiads of information to solidify his faith further, and to teach his congregation the many weaknesses of this false belief. I am going to offer very briefly ( Lord willing) some of the aguments they presented to him, and for a moment put yourself in this setting. One person against a multiple of Muslims, only able to answer from the top of your head, no reference material availible, and having never dealt with this particular false belief before. Lee I have seen your arguments for the accuracy of the bible and the general direction you would go and I do not think you would fair so well either. Judging the two this guy did better. In fact if you will try this little excercise with me. I will pose some questions from the Muslims and from THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD ONLY with only the bible to answer from.. And maybe we and the people that view this forum will learn something. Once again thanks for your quick answer, and keep in mind I am here to share and help in any way I can, so that we can be the people God has called us to be. Being able to contend for the faith once delivered.

Mike

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

My biggest problem with most people who claim the Bible to not be the Word of God is that they rarely know the claims it makes of itself, both internally (explicitly stated) and externally (verification from history and archeology, etc). The challenge from evolution is the weakest one of all.

To me, the real issue isn't that the Bible is true versus the other world religion literature. The issue to me is that unlike the others, the Bible *demands* a decision. If the Bible is 100% true, then the unbeliever is faced with a choice: believe the claims or reject the claims. There is no middle ground. History, science, archeology are all smoke screens that unbelievers use to not want to face the fact that there is a God who created them and who a) demands a decision and b) will some day hold them accountable for their actions.

This is part of my "theory of reality" (nothing formal, just what I refer to this thought as). Rather than face absolute reality (as stated in the Bible), the majority of human beings (to include a whole lot of Christians) live in a continual state of fantasy where they are the "masters of their fate" with no thought for the future, or the God who owns the future. Catasrophic events (death, accidents, serious illnesses) and the Bible puncture this fantasy. So the Bible MUST be argued away. It punctures the fantasy. But the a) and b) above are still absolute reality, in spite of man's best efforts.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Mike:

I appreciate your kind response and your indication of your complete faith in the inspiration of the scriptures as our only infallible rule of faith and practice. I did not intend to misunderstand you but I did intend to illicit a clarification, which I succeeded in getting. But you have said the following:

Lee I have seen your arguments for the accuracy of the bible and the general direction you would go and I do not think you would fair so well either. Judging the two this guy did better.

Now Mike, you have not seen my arguments for the accuracy of the Bible for I have not made any as yet in this forum. In fact, I stated very clearly that I would be willing to offer these arguments in an organized fashion and actually invited you to join with me in coordinating such an effort together. I did this because it seemed to me that you were trying to help us by being the devils advocate. And I made the statement clearly that I was not making any arguments to support the inspiration of the scriptures but rather suggesting that we apply the same scrutiny to all of these other books that claim inspiration equal to that of the scriptures that we have to the Bible and that you would find them severely wanting for any evidence of inspiration. These were my words concerning that matter:

Now I am only making these assertions at the moment to be brief but we can scrutinize the arguments that are offered to support the inspiration of all of these books one by one and submit them to the exact same test that the Bible has been subject to for these thousands of years and you will be amazed to see just how quickly they crumble under the scrutiny.

So you see I did not offer nor did I intend to offer any arguments for the inspiration of the Bible but I was calling for an examination of the claims of inspiration of these other books comparable to the examination that we make of the scriptures. Because often what happens is that the Bible is the only one that receives a strict examination and I believe that it stands the test of all such examination but people are often not allowed to see the how poorly these uninspired books stand the same test. That was my point. If I had been trying to make arguments concerning the inspiration of the scriptures I would have taken a completely different tack.

Therefore you have not seen my arguments because I have yet to make a single one concerning the inspiration of the scriptures. Therefore your judgment of how well I would do in comparison to our learned brother whose faith was shaken by a group of Muslims that ganged up on him is very poor indeed for you have nothing with which to compare. But such a comparison is absurd and useless for it is the arguments that we should get to. I simply pointed out correctly that we should not think that our faith is based anything less than a firm foundation just because some so-called learned preacher doubted his faith because he could not answer what he considered to be hard questions put to him by some Muslims. Even if such were true, and I do not doubt it, such is no viable argument against the Bible or a reason for Christians to have fear or in any way doubt their faith. He is one man regardless of how learned and pious and he is just as fallible as are all of the rest of us and if our faith in the scriptures rest solely on the strength of our learned brethren then we might as well give up now for we will soon lose a faith that rest on such shaking ground. Our faith is rooted firmly in the resurrected Christ who sent the Holy Spirit to reveal and confirm his word that we might have faith in God and not man. This is the reason of my criticism of your words. It is not your learned friend with which I was concerned but rather the shallow implications that our faith was in some danger because this learned friend was unable to deal with the arguments presented by some very intelligent Muslims. Such a thing might happen to any of us but should our faith be destroyed if it does or should we not do as your friend apparently did and go back to study more diligently to find the answers that we did not have on the top of our heads. All of this you left out of your first post and left the matter hanging as if being overwhelmed by some very bright questioners places our faith in great danger. It may hurt our pride a bit which is a beneficial exercise at best but it will only destroy our faith if our faith was founded on nothing more than intellectual elitism of our learned preachers! Now that was my point concerning your learned friend. If I have read you correctly it seems that his faith did survive the ordeal and that he is now more rooted and faithful than ever before and that he would now be able to handle such attacks very well. That is exactly the rest of the story that you left out which I wanted to bring out. I did accomplish that much now didnt I?

If you really want to play the devils advocate and challenge me to discuss this issue then I am willing to do so. But I will do what your preacher friend should have done. He should have challenged those who ganged up on him to a formal debate in the presence of both his congregation and the Muslim congregation and demanded that they state their propositions and clearly define them and present evidence to support them. In doing this they would have been required to put up or shut up and would not have been able to manipulate him so easily by everyone talking at once and his not having time to think through the arguments clearly as they were presented. If you wish to debate this subject with me then state your propositions and contact me via e-mail and we will draw up propositions and define them and fairly and honestly discuss them. Why not ask the Muslims to join with me in a formal debate of these matters. You see, Mike, one of the great mistakes that many make is failing to realize the value of an honorable debate where everything is stated clearly as possible and arguments are presented and answered without any distractions and neither side is allowed to ignore a strong argument that they cannot answer. This learned preacher should have known how to handle this situation. But I do not intend to discuss him and his tactics neither do I intend to defend myself as to whether I am any more capable than he was but I am prepared to defend the Bible as the inspired word of God and to refute the claims of all books that claim to be inspired just like the Bible though they have never and could never pass through the fire of intense scrutiny untouched as has the Bible. I am referring to books such as the Book of Mormon, The Veda, and the Quran.

It does not matter to me If I must make that defense against a brother in Christ who is all too willing to play the devils advocate when there are enough children of the devil to advocate his cause without the help of a Christian or if I must defend it against all the Muslims and Mormons combined. I am prepared to do so. Therefore if you would like to engage in a formal debate of these matters on behalf of the devil and his children in order to help Gods children to strengthen their faith then accept this challenge and contact me so that we can draw up the propositions that you will affirm and I will deny as well as draw up propositions that I will affirm and you will deny and let us just see how the word of God stands the test that you think is so strong that it almost destroyed the faith of our learned brother. It would be better if you could find a Muslim or a Mormon that was willing to accept such a challenge.

If you wish to do your little exercise concerning answering these Muslim questions off the top of my head then save it for the debate. If it is so powerful it would be very useful in decimating my arguments and proving your point that since they were so powerful against one of our learned brethren they are a great threat to our poor unlearned men like Brother E. Lee Saffold and you will have demonstrated by irrefutable evidence that you were right. But remember, what will it prove if your demonstration fails? It will only prove that your friend was not strong enough or prepared enough for this circumstance that came upon him so suddenly. But such will prove nothing concerning the inspiration of the Bible or any of the other books that claim a similar inspiration. Such has nothing to do with the questions that you have asked but if you consider it such an important exercise I will submit to it if you will agree to a formal debate of this matter and we will set aside a period of time in the debate for you to surprise me. Does that sound fair enough?

You are right, I am a veteran and you do not need to worry about hurting my feelings with mere words. For the truth is very important to me and I will follow it wherever it leads. If your criticisms of me are just I will correct my path very quickly. But nothing short of the truth will change my thinking on any subject. So do not be so cautious about offending me. I am not important in this or any other discussion in this forum or elsewhere. The truth of God is what is important.

Now instead of comparing me with your learned preacher friend who almost lost his faith why not state clearly and define the propositions and compare the arguments made for and against them? This would be profitable. But comparing my feeble efforts to your friend's near shipwreck of his faith is fruitless.

Now again I state to you that I have not even begun to make any real arguments and this was intentional. There is no need to argue these things without some structure that will lead to a reasonable conclusion and produce some useful fruit. All else is mere vain and foolish babbling that all Christians should avoid.

But rest assured that any arguments with me on this subject must include a serious look at how these other books that you mentioned stand the same scrutiny that the Bible has faced all these many years. It is completely unreasonable to fail to apply this test of accuracy and authenticity, and genuineness to all books that claim to be inspired of God not just the Bible. It would be very instructive to all if we could arrange to place each of them one by one under the microscope and examine their claims. This is all that I intended to say in my last post. I have now said it again.

Now you want to defend your friend which you could have done by telling the specifics of the situation in the first place which you chose not to do so that you could "glean" what others have to offer in this area "without conceding" your "position as you have explained with these words:

And let me briefly defend, a well respected close friend, Christian, preacher of the Gospel, and capable leader. I obviously left out specific facts, that I in turn could glean what people would have to offer in the area defending the faith once delivered, without conceding my position.

Now Mike, I want to say that I am glad to hear that your friend is well respected and that he is a close friend, a Christian, a Preacher of the gospel, and a capable leader. I do not doubt that all you have said concerning him is true. I sincerely do not doubt it. But you did leave out many specific facts that left the impression, at least in my mind, that he was not very learned or capable as a leader. Now your omissions concerning him were not very just to your friend but my response to the character that you described was justified. Now you return to complete the character and he is now a different person than the one you initially described. But be that as it may my point remains the same. Our faith does not rest in our learned men but in our risen Lord. Our faith does not reside in our capable leaders but in Christ our Lord. Our faith does not reside in our preachers of the gospel" but in our propitiation we have obtain in obedience to Christ through the precious gospel, our faith does not reside in our close friends but in the one who laid down his life for his friends. Satan is able to deceive even the very best of men and to shake their faith by so many different means and if we feel threatened simply because our learned brother could not answer every argument without even having the time to think about them and research with integrity all of them then we do not have the spirit that Christ gave us for he has not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of a sound mind. This was my point and I did not intend any more harm to your friend than you intended by telling us his story and omitting the pertinent details that would cause all of us to see him in a better light. So it is not I that made your friend appear to be less than learned it was your omissions that left that impression, at least in my mind. But I have shown as much if not more respect to your friend than you have shown by telling such a story about him with such unbecoming omissions. You did this to your friend just so you could glean what people would have to offer in the area defending the faith once delivered, without conceding my position. What? Is this some kind of game to you? Your position was pretty obvious to those who had read other things written by you in this forum. The salvation of the souls of men is serious business, Mike. Do not deliberately trifle with their precious souls. It is not necessary for you to hide your position in order to glean what others have to offer. Why not come into this forum offering something of value to others? Give us the benefit of your faith for we all have doubts enough of our own! Everyone has moments of doubt, some less than others, and your friend is nothing more than an example that even our learned preachers of the gospel can have such doubt. But it is not beneficial to merely glean Mike it is also needful to exhort one another and edify or build up one another in the most holy faith. Why should you advocate for the devil? Why not stand firm for the truth. Liars and deceivers will make their appearance in due time and we can all offer something in defense of the truth instead of selfishly gleaning what others have to offer while giving nothing in return. In fact joining in these conflicts against false teachers with your fellow Christians would allow you to glean and contribute at the exact same time. Christ does not need any advocates for the devil. Plenty of those are readily available. He has designed that the church be the pillar and ground of the truth. I highly recommend that you stop pretending to be on the opposite side of truth in this or any other matter. If you wish to play these games with the preacher boys then invite them over and enjoy yourself but in this forum we have many who have only recently become Christians and they need to be feed and nurtured and they very much need to see their brethren standing firm for the truth of the gospel and the authenticity of the Bible as the word of God. The last thing they need is to see their fellow Christians playing the old worn out and boring game of devils advocate! The scriptures do say that we should let all things be done unto edifying. We are to strengthen one another and we are to quit you like men and be strong! Enough of this feeble weak-kneed form of pitiful creatures that cannot stand firm! We have an agnostic in this forum that claims that Christianity is the religion of pity and that it is for the weak members of society and is completely unattractive to anyone who is strong. There are times when I think I can understand what he has seen in some Christians that caused him to believe such a thing. But he has not met many of those Christians such as those described in the New Testament that were too busy defending the faith from constant attacks on every hand to be pretending to advocate for their enemies. Surely you have not found enough controversy Mike. There are plenty of people who will challenge us in all that we believe. Where are those who will work to build us up and will be set for the defense of the gospel?" Let the Muslims argue for themselves, Mike. They can do it better than you or I. Let the Mormons defend their own cause, Mike. Let the heathen Hindu defend his own absurdities. Let us contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

But since you appear to be interested only in what we have to offer in defense of the faith without giving us the benefit of what you have to offer from your faith let me offer something to you.

What I have to offer is a challenge of a formal debate on this subject with anyone who is willing to do the work that will examine not only the Bibles claim to inspiration but the Quran, the Veda, and the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and the writings of Joseph the Seer and their similar claims as well. What I am offering is a discussion wherein we scrutinize each one of these books one by one until they have all been discussed and then draw the conclusions of which ones stood the test if any. Now I can assure you that the Bible will stand such a test without failing and equally the other books will fail miserably. That is what I have to offer and if you are interested contact me so that we can either arrange to work together on such an examination or, if we must, arrange to oppose one another in a formal debate.

Maybe we could put something coherent together and publish it in this forum by our joint efforts and then jointly seek out a Muslim, and Mormon, and a Hindu to come in here and defend their so-called inspired books from the arguments that we make against them in formal debate format. And you and I can defend the Bible from their arguments that they make against it. How does that sound to you? I do believe that this would be more profitable than defending your friend from my apparent attacks that were based solely upon the very little information that you provided concerning his problem of being unable to deal with such a large group of Muslims that out numbered him and overwhelmed him. But I do doubt very seriously that it was their arguments alone that caused him to be overwhelmed, as you seemed to say in your initial post.

My friend this could be a great opportunity for you and I to cooperate in furthering the cause of Christ. However, if we must be adversaries in this matter then let it be in a formal debate wherein every word can be clearly established.

I pray that our Lord will grant us wisdom to be strong advocates for the truth and to bring many lost souls to see that in Him we have hope and that it is His word that will judge us in the last day so that they will be begotten by the gospel of Christ and be born of water and the spirit so that they too can learn the joy of being in the kingdom of God.

A Christian,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Dr. Jon:

I want to say a heart felt AMEN AND AMEN! Your words are exactly on target! They explain at least one very good reason that it is the Bible alone that receives all of the vicious attacks and microscopic scrutiny and perpetual examination wile other books that claim to be inspired are left relatively alone! They do not treaten our illusions with the same force of clear evidence of being absolutely true! We can afford to ignore the Veda, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon and the Buddhist scriptures for they do not tell us the truth in such inescapable terms that we cannot avoid it! All of the forces that have been brought to bear against the Bible have but barely glanced in the direction of these other books and it is interesting that such should be the case for they claim and their followers believe that those books are "inspired". But they do not cause any concern to the atheist or agnostic or the "higher critics". No it is the BIBLE that worries them and you have given one good reason why.

The other reason is that satan knows that those false uninspired books are his invention that is designed to lead men into perdition and he dare not attack his own forces!

Thank you Dr. Jon for your comments. They are, as always very well thought out and written.

For Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Lee-

First I assume that you are from a non-instrumental CoC congregation correct? Catching some of the key things you said, it seems as though this is the case. But I have been wrong before. But please grant me this request, and tell me if I guessed correctly.

Secondly you wrote a book! I thought of many things to say to all that you wrote, but it seems to me you are looking for a perpetual argument, swatting at every word that I say. Why? I asked a question in the way I choose to ask it, if you do not like it then I apologize. I am looking for a brief, as brief as possible explanation of why we believe the bible only, not the other so called bibles. Of which none of them, as I am well aware do not hold any spiritual value AT ALL. They are from the father of lies. It seems to me that you are willing to go off in any tangent, arguing any point, to be right. Lee, I have seen no instructions as to how I must ask a question, And at this point I have seen no wrong doing on my part. This is quite rediculous, me even having to defend my not asking things exactly to your specifications. You choose not to answer in brief detail as these forums seem to dictate considering the amount of time that it takes to transfer information from multiple sources. So that is your choice, fine.

And for you and all others, I do not solely rely on the men that lead my congregation, Christ in me ( and if you are one that does not believe in the indwelling, the answer is no I am not willing to debate you at this time) and the bible are the absolutes that I trust totally in. Not to take anything away from God or the Spirit either. But it is a added benefit, a great blessing to see men doing what God has commanded, capable of defending the truth, and living the life that God had intended them to live. Being great examples.As Paul was.

Now I ask of you, please forgive me because I did not say everything correctly in your eyes, and I mean that. But once again, I ask what are the defining factors of knowing that the bible only is the one and only book that we are to trust? Lee, you do not have to answer that, But I would like to see you answer, just the general categories of why the bible is to be believed. If you do not want to then that is fine, I am hopeful that you will see that I am not looking to debate every point, but just to see what kind of answers are given. And maybe even ( which has been my original intent) share some information with those who are not really sure.

Now it would seem that I probably did not reply in the air- tight logical manner you demand, but bare with me I am still growing, and that is not intended to be smart, just direct. It seems everything I would say in defense of my learned preacher and the way I have asked and said things does not suit you, then let us agree to disagree. If you are unwilling to answer the post, what can I say? I cannot feed your desire to debate at the drop of a hat. So it is easy to see that you will be wasting time here.... I am sorry. Mike

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Lee,

Mike just said that the preacher in question simply "questioned his faith". Why then are you assuming that "question" mean "overwhelmed" or "destroyed"? I have questioned my faith many times by good arguments that were given at the time but upon further examination the arguments proved to be false as compared to the solid logic of the Word. When I mean "question" I do not mean overwhelmed or destroyed, I mean that I ask myself the question, "Is there any truth in what this person is saying?", or "What if he is right and I am wrong?". Every Christian should ask themselves these questions at one time or another. I am sure, since you are a veteran, that you have done the same things at times.

Now, as I have grown a little, I do not get shaken by many things any more because I have studid them out. I remember when I first started studying the Scripture I thought I could take on anybody. Well, after getting smacked around by some men who could take the Scripture out of context as well as anybody else and making me look like a fool, I decided to get boned up on the Word. Now, I can handle most people very well. The different beliefs that I do not know much about seem to present themselves on a consistent basis. I work with a campus ministry and I run into many different beliefs that I must study on. When I come into contact with one I have not heard before sometimes they can throw me for a loop by some bizarre argumentation. But as I grow, the challenges seem to become less and less intimidating. Just some thoughts from another point of view.

Mike,

As for the how I know the Bible is the only Word of God, I know because God appeared to me in a dream and told me. I also pulled my car off to the side of the road and prayed Jesus into my heart and this great feeling of peace came to me.

Now, if you do not know where I am coming from, let me tell you that the entire previous paragraph was overflowing with sarcasm. Most denominations rely on these type of subjective experiences to show the Bible is true, but thee arguments are bankrupt. So many other religions can make the same claims.

The truth is that one starts by showing the bible to be historically accurate. Then he starts on prophecy. Predicted and fulfilled prophecy is the defining characteristic that separates the Bible from all other books. The bible is not proven true because another is proven false. We must present positive evidence for the Bible being God's word. Prophecy transcends human or satanic ability and therefore shows the Bible is God's word.

This is just a brief answer on the Bible.

Matt

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Matt-

You hit the answer squarely on the head. Historically the bible is 100% accurate and that is great evidence. But as you said the fulfilled prophesies make this the one and only, NO OTHER BOOK HAS FULFILLED PROPHESY. I encourage all to dig deep into the prophesies and become familiar with them, they are awe inspiring, and ONLY GOD ALMIGHTY CAN FULFILL WHAT HE SAID HUNDREDS EVEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AFTER HIS SERVANTS SPOKE OF WHAT WOULD TAKE PLACE. This is the greatest challenge for all other books, in which they have no answer. I know the Muslims try to assert they have a very small few, but these are not even a good joke when you get down and scrutinize them closely. That also was a good point that you cannot prove a book true by proving the others false, because logically they both could be wrong. It is absolutely amazing to see that God provided for his children, so they did not have to just believe a book supposedly made by him, but rather he left us everything we need to PROVE the bible is the word of God. Matt, did you know that it only took you 35 words to answer my question, you made that look easy.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Thanks for bringing that up, Mike. That was going to be one of the points I was going to make when I finally had enough time to respond to you adequately. NO other book of "scripture" in any other religion can claim to have predictive prophecy that is 100% accurate. (Most don't even have any prophecy at all!) God states in the Scripture that this is how you will know that it is He speaking, because he tells the things that are to come before they happen. The Book of Mormon has a couple of "prophecies," some copied straight out of the King James Bible and therefore of course accurate, the others totally off (such as the prophecy that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem). As far as I know, the Quran, the Vedas, none of the other ancient writings even take a stab at prophecy. Or if they do it is in vague generalities, like Nostradamus' quatrains, that can mean anything. The God of the Bible is precise and very detailed in predicting future events. Then we have the Jehovah's Witnesses. Who are they to criticize the Bible when they can't even get their own prophetic utterances right? They have predicted the end of the world like a dozen times now, from 1898 to 1814 to 1925 to 1975 ... all have failed. And they have the gall to criticize the Bible? Even rewrite it?!!

I would urge anyone interested in this subject to do further reading. A good place to start is "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, he has an entire chapter near the end of the book devoted to this. Then read the books in his bibliography if you want more good stuff. =)

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

(Oops, that should have been "1914.")

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

John-

Thank you for the contributions to this forum! They were well said.

Mike

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

John,

Actually the Qu'ran has much prophecy in it. Of course it is no where near the amount of the Bible. Interestingly enough, the prophecies that Muhammed made during his lifetime that were fulfilled in his lifetime are extremely accurate. However, the prophecies he made concerning the future are very vague. For example, he makes a prophecy that animals will be gathered togethor in zoos and that big ships would float on the seas. The funny thing is that Muslims believe in the flood of Noah ( a local one though) and so big ships already would have floated on the waters. Their prophecies are no where near the qaulity of the Bible.

Matt

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Matt:

You have said:

Mike just said that the preacher in question simply "questioned his faith". Why then are you assuming that "question" mean "overwhelmed" or "destroyed"? I have questioned my faith many times by good arguments that were given at the time but upon further examination the arguments proved to be false as compared to the solid logic of the Word. When I mean "question" I do not mean overwhelmed or destroyed, I mean that I ask myself the question, "Is there any truth in what this person is saying? or "What if he is right and I am wrong?".

Matt, I understand what you are talking about. You are possibly correct that I have misunderstood Mike in his comment concerning his friend. However, I do want to explain to you what I believe to be the basic difference between what both you and Mike have said and what it appears that you have actually meant by what you have said.

He said:

I know a preacher that has studied with Muslims and their attack on the bible was well thought out and it made him question his faith. And this guy is learned in the scriptures and apolegetics.

You said:

I have questioned my faith many times by good arguments that were given at the time but upon further examination the arguments proved to be false as compared to the solid logic of the Word.

Now you describe a situation that I have often been in myself where my arguments are sufficiently refuted and the force of the opposition arguments is apparently very strong and it has caused me to question my position. But I have never questioned my FAITH when there appears to be a flaw in my arguments or strength in the arguments of those opposing the truth. I have often, after determining that the arguments against my position were in fact the truth, changed my mind and turned from error. But this questioning of my position is very different from questioning my faith. This I have never done and would not do unless the argument was sufficient to convince me that the faith in the facts of the resurrection of Christ were not true at all. But Mike does not say that his learned brother questioned his position or his flawed arguments. And you do not say that you questioned the accuracy of your arguments or the truthfulness of your position. Rather both of you appeared to have been implying that the arguments that you do not know how to answer justifies one in immediately questioning his faith instead of questioning the arguments themselves and questioning your own arguments as well. But I now realize that it appears that you mean only that when one cannot answer reasonable arguments made against their position that one should step back and question their position. Now this is something that all should do. But the implication that Mike gave was that this was some severe problem. The questioning of ones FAITH is a severe problem but the examination of ones arguments and ones position is not a problem at all. Everyone should do this regularly even if no one gives him a reason to do so.

But the idea that the inability to answer all questions put to you at all times justifies occasional questioning of ones faith in Christ is not true. Now that is a horse of a different color indeed. Since his friend was a Christian, his faith is in the resurrected Christ. Did the arguments of his Muslim opponents cause him to question his faith in the resurrected Christ? If they did then they were very powerful arguments indeed and we should hear them not merely be told that such powerful arguments really exist without being informed as to just what they were so that we can measure their strength for ourselves. But I do agree with you that it appears that I have completely misunderstood Mikes intention and I will sincerely apologize to Brother Mike for that mistake.

You have also referred to my suggestion that the other books claiming inspiration be examined with the same scrutiny that is applied to the Bible with these words:

The bible is not proven true because another is proven false. We must present positive evidence for the Bible being God's word. Prophecy transcends human or satanic ability and therefore shows the Bible is God's word.

I agree with you completely that the Bible is not proven to be true simply by proving that the other books that claim inspiration are false and I did not make any such argument. I was referring to the second part of Mikes question wherein he asked:

What about the Veda, the Hindu bible, or the Qur'an the Muslim bible. What makes the bible the one and only? How about the claims of the JW's and the assertion that the "protestant" bible is corrupted, or again the book of mormon are we to believe that?

I was pointing to the fact that by a very simple process of elimination of all books that do not stand the test of examination and scrutiny of the evidence to support their claims to inspiration would leave the Bible alone standing firm after all of the others had collapsed. This does not prevent the necessity of making positive arguments to establish that the Bible is the word of God. It simply is a good way to demonstrate that since the Bible is the only Book that can withstand all of the attacks against its accuracy, authenticity, and genuineness. Because of the strength of the positive evidence that establishes its inspiration it is therefore the one and only inspired word of God. Now I have not argued that the Bible is inspired solely because these other books are not inspired. I have instead argued that when all of the positive evidence designed to establish the inspiration of all of these books claiming to be inspired of God, including the Bible, are sufficiently and rigorously examined the Bible will be the only one left standing while the others will crumble. Such a test would establish the Bible as the one and only inspired word from God. If no positive arguments were made for the inspiration of the Bible there would be no evidence to scrutinize concerning its claims now would there? This would be a sufficient answer to that part of Mikes question that asked why the Bible is our one and only rule of faith and practice. If we fully establish the Bible to be the word of God by the positive arguments that you mention, of which there are a great many, but we do not apply the same test to the claims of these other books one could indeed be convinced that the Bible is indeed inspired of God but he would not necessarily be convinced that it was the one and only word of God. If he accepts without scrutiny all of these other books as also being the word of God all we will have accomplished is to add one more inspired book to his list of books that he believes to be inspired. We would not have established the truth that the bible is the one and only word of God. In fact, the Muslims believe that the old testament is the word of God, the Mormons will tell you that they believe the Bible to be the word of God and that the book of Mormon is the word of God in exactly the same way. They also will tell you that Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and the Writings of Joseph the Seer are also the very word of God. They even go further to tell you that the modern revelations are given to the Mormon apostles and their words are the word of God.

So the fact that I have given a suggestion that will help Mike to answer the second part of his question which asked why is the Bible the one and only word of God does not mean that I was trying to prove the Bible to be the word of God simply by proving all the other books are not the word of God. The Bible is the word of God because of the insurmountable evidence that demonstrates it to be such. I will, when I next post in this thread, offer some of the positive evidence that establishes the Bible to be the word of God but only a fair, honest, and scrutinizing examination of the claims of these other books will eliminate them from being considered the word of God by any honest inquirer and I am saying that this task should not be ignored by those who would be prepared to engage Muslims and Mormons and other religions without being taken by surprise as was Mikes learned friend.

Mike:

As I have stated to brother Matt, after reading your words to me in both the e-mail that you sent and in the one posted here as well as considering brother Matts suggestion that you merely intended to indicate that your learned Brother questioned his position and his arguments rather than that he genuinely questioned his faith in the risen Christ, I can see that I have completely misunderstood your intention and I apologize to you for that misunderstanding concerning your learned friend.

You have asked me:

First I assume that you are from a non-instrumental CoC congregation correct? Catching some of the key things you said, it seems as though this is the case. But I have been wrong before. But please grant me this request, and tell me if I guessed correctly.

You ask this because you are new to the forum. Most of those who have been here for several months know that I am, as are all faithful Christians, a member of the Church of Christ. It is also true that I do not, neither do my brethren where I worship, use the instrument of music in the worship. Now just why that is important to you I do not know.

You are among the very few in this forum that is not aware that I do not use instruments of music in worshiping God.

I have already answered that question before and if you will read through the archives a bit you will see that we have talked about the subject of instrumental music some. It seems that most of my brethren who use music in their worship, who are writing in this forum, are not opposed to my being here.

Now just what this has to do with the subject of this thread I cannot tell. Maybe you would be willing to tell me just what were the key things that you caught that caused you to sense that I do not use instruments in the worship? That should be interesting though for the life of me I cannot see just what it has to do with the subject of this thread.

Mike there is no need to apologize for the way that you asked the question as you have with these words:

Why? I asked a question in the way I choose to ask it, if you do not like it then I apologize. I am looking for a brief, as brief as possible explanation of why we believe the bible only, not the other so called bibles.

I have no problem with the way you asked the question. I think that I did misunderstand you because of it but that is not your fault but mine. Even if I did not like the way you asked the question you should not apologize to me for asking it in the way that you did. That is entirely your business. So also is how I answer your question. You have ask it and I have responded. You want me to be brief but I have no concern about being brief. I did not tell you how to ask your question and I will respond as I see fit. So there is no need for such an apology for you are right to ask your question however you deem appropriate and I am right to respond as I deem appropriate. Then you say:

But once again, I ask what are the defining factors of knowing that the bible only is the one and only book that we are to trust? Lee, you do not have to answer that, But I would like to see you answer, just the general categories of why the bible is to be believed. I will write again later and I will answer your question concerning the general categories of why the Bible is to be believed. But I remind you that such was not your original question. You original question was as you have said,  Why the bible is the one and only book that we are to trust. That is the reason I initially suggested that the bible and the other books that you mentioned be placed under the exact same intense scrutiny and such would demonstrate powerfully why the bible is the one and only rule of faith and practice for none of the others even begin to withstand the test of intense scrutiny. Now that point I mention again because its value is being unjustly and unreasonably ignored. Nevertheless, it was an answer to the part of your question that concerned the bible being the one and only rule of faith and practice.

I am happy to hear that the bible is the only absolutes that you trust in as you have said with these words:

And for you and all others, I do not solely rely on the men that lead my congregation, Christ in me ( and if you are one that does not believe in the indwelling, the answer is no I am not willing to debate you at this time) and the bible are the absolutes that I trust totally in.

I do sincerely believe that you do not solely rely on the men that lead your congregation. I do believe that you rely upon Christ in you. But I cannot understand why you say (and if you are one that does not believe in the indwelling, What on earth does that have to do with anything we are talking about and what have I said that would make you draw the conclusion that I might not believe in the idea that Christ dwells within us? It does seem that you have preconceived opinions about those of us who do not use instruments of music in the worship that cannot be supported by the facts. I understand that you do not want to debate me at this time and since I now see that you are no longer playing devils advocate there is no need to debate for we do agree that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice in the body of Christ.

But you continue to apologize:

I cannot feed your desire to debate at the drop of a hat. So it is easy to see that you will be wasting time here.... I am sorry. Mike

If I had such a desire you would be completely incapable of feeding it for it would be insatiable. Mike, I have no desire to debate at the drop of a hat. I doubt if dropping a hat would concern me very much unless you were about to drop one into a gas turbine engine and thereby destroy a multimillion dollar piece of equipment or something. But I will debate, as I am sure you would, anyone who opposes the truth of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ the very moment that they oppose it. I do not have time to engage in many debates. I challenged you because you appeared to want to play the devils advocate and I was willing to defend the truth against even a pretended enemy. I have no apologies to offer for such behavior and I will continue to challenge such things. But the dropping of the hat has nothing to do with it. You did not drop a hat rather you appeared to me to be challenging the accuracy of the Bible and I was prepared to debate you concerning that position. I am still prepared to do so if we later learn that it was your intent. But it does appear that you were only trying to get us to think clearly and prepare ourselves to discuss these things. Therefore, again, I offer to you my apologies for misunderstanding your intent. There is no need for you to be concerned about my wasting time here for it is my time to waste. If you or anyone reading this forum does not want to waste time reading what I have written that is your business. But just because you assert that I am wasting my time does not make it true. Assertions without proof are indeed meaningless. I do not agree that I have wasted my time in this thread or in this forum. SO why would you apologize for saying that I have wasted my time? Is that wrong for you to say such a thing? You really apologize too much! Say what you mean and mean what you say and apologize only when you have genuinely done something wrong or truely harmed someone but apologizing simply to make an appearance of having a genuine "Christian" spirit is hypocritical!

I do not think that such is your conscious intent and it is entirely your business when and how often you apologize but that is the impression your constant apologies for things that are not wrong or harmful in any way makes upon a man like me. I am probably the only one who has this perception of those who profusely apologize for things that are not sinful or wrong or harmful in anyway just to avoid the slight chance that some weak soul might be offended. We are too tender these days brother Mike. You had a purpose and it was a good one I am sure in warning me that I am wasting my time here. I do not agree but why should you apologize for saying so? I had already told you that you need not be concerned about offending me with mere words. I say this to encourage you to be bold in your assertions and prepared to support them with sufficent evidence and do not apologize anything that is not wrong. Such apologizing for everything whether it is right or wrong will one day make an apology completely meaningless in our language.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Mike;

I would question the "accuracy" of Mohammed's prophecies. I would imagine they would fall into the same category as Joseph Smith's prophecies. Take, for example, his famous Civil War prophecy, which Mormons are so excited to display as proof he was a prophet. First of all, rumors of civil war were running rampant in the U.S. even as far back as Smith's time, in the 1830's, even to the identifying of hot spots such as Fort Sumter. Secondly, his prophecy, though it starts out well enough, quickly goes awry as he prophesies a slave revolt, European nations becoming involved, the war spilling out into a world war, etc. I would imagine with some of Mohammed's "prophecies", that he too had some knowledge of things that were coming, through news he was getting and the rumor mill, and made his prophecies accordingly. I do not consider such "safe" prophecies to be truly prophetic.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

Mike;

You asked in your original post, "Has [the Bible] been preserved 100% doctrinally for all these thousands of years?" Indeed it has. Without being longwinded about it, the science of textual criticism has shown this beyond any shadow of doubt. With most texts of ancient literature we have only a few copies of the original, and these copies usually date centuries after the original was penned. With the New Testament, we have over 25.000 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts, some dating within 50 years of the original autograph. When we compare all of these, we find they all agree in 99.5% of the text. The other half a percent is mostly spelling and grammatical changes over time, and in not one place does it change the meaning of any doctrinal passage. As far as the Old Testament goes, we now know for certain that for the past 2500 years the Jews have been accurately preserving it. How? Because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We can take a copy of the Book of Isaiah from the DSS (circa 500 B.C.) and compare it to a modern Massoretic text and the difference is inconsequential. (Compare that to the Book of Mormon, which has had over 4000 documented changes since 1830, many doctrinal -- the most recent in 1979.)

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

John,

When I said Muhammed's prophecies were accurate during his life I meant that there is a serious questuion as to whether they are prophecies or simply filled in after his life ended. I guess I should have clarified more. One can see he was not a prophet by looking at the fact that the only "prophecies" that came true were the ones in his lifetime, (which could have easily been redacted into the text) and the long-range "prophecies he made are somewhere in the next universe.

Matt

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000