it’s a matter of scientific, computer mathematics… 40 prophecies of Jesus Christ’s first advent, and it all came into fruition on the money. do the math yourself, but the figure that comes up is 10^157. that’s a ten with a hundred and fifty seven zeroes after it. that number of *atoms* couldn’t fit into our observable universe.
The fall of Tyre and Alexander the Great are just 2 prophecies, verified by linguistic and historical analysis, which demonstrate the divine inspiration of the Bible.
In 1910 a Russian American Harvard math genius and linguistic expert named Ivan Panin proved the Bible mathematically with incontrovertible evidence. Watch - Math proves the Bible. More recently it was proven forensically by J Warner Wallace, a cold case homicide detective, in his book, “Person of Interest”. Wallace gives ample evidence to convince any jury the veracity of the Bible. Bible firsts include: knowing about ocean springs and mountains in the oceans, that life is in the blood, that the earth hangs on nothing and is a sphere, and there is much more, including foreknowledge of Orion’s belt being gravitationally bound together!
2:51 Romans 1 indeed does mention the Gospel as a power of salvation, but it is not clear that the "foolishness" and "shameful" part has to do with rejecting Gospel. More likely, it refers to knowing there is one God from the philosophy of Plato or Aristotle or similar reasonings, and still accepting the inherited (at one earlier stage the new Nimrodian or soon post-Nimrodian) paganism and polytheism.
@@hglundahl 1 Corinthians 3: 19? Psalm 14: 1? Proverbs 9: 10? It is a pretty common theme in both Paul's writing and the wisdom literature of the Old Testament (so it predates Plato and Aristotle) that unbelief is foolishness and that wisdom is from God. I don't see how we could even read such statements as specifically targeting particular philosophies instead of all non-Biblical worldviews. It's not like any Bible author would say that Plato sucks but the Baal-worshipers are fine.
He says God claims that the Scriptures are His words. Where? In the Scriptures themselves? Don't take me wrong: I'm no atheist. But this guy's theology seems to hold little to no water. He should rather start with a philosophical exposition of how Christians know God and judge the Scriptures' inspiration and validity based on that initial knowledge. Otherwise, any book can claim to be inspired and be believed having nothing solid as proof. Saying Jesus fullfills prophecies is of some help but still problematic. Good were the times when Christians and pagans would debate ideas, not groundless assertions (be it Sola Scripture or scientific humanism).
You have said in your comment that his theology “seems to hold little to no water” and that “he should rather start with a philosophical exposition.” You have reasoned, and you have asserted, based on established principles of logic, etc. And so the point (which you seem to have overlooked) is quite simple: what is your basis for these principles, if not the Scriptures? How do you account for them? And remember, we are talking here about the preconditions to intelligibility. And so they must be objectively true, and absolute. This is what you must account for. And please note that it is not enough for you to say, “Well, it’s not the Bible…” Because the Christian rebuttal to that is clear: provide a basis, apart from the Bible. Since we all live in this world, and we all make sense of it, it is incumbent upon all of us to do this. We would assert, within the Christian worldview, that apart from the Scriptures, there is no basis for absolutes, for truth - truth, which is truth by definition, because it is objectively true. Prove us wrong.
@@axelbatalha2830Any and all absolutes. The laws of logic are indeed absolute, and so yes, a basis for the preconditions to intelligibility would include the laws of logic.
@@alienrighteousness I imagine that by principle of logic you mean that by which logic comes about. Now, as logic has two meanings, λογος and επιστήμη λογική, the principle of the first is human intellect, without which no speech as logos would come to be, whereas the principle of the second is opinion as opinion is the principle of epistheme. Given how tge word principle is flexible, other principles may be pointed out. By laws of logic I suppose you mean the excluded third, the form of syllogisms, deductions, the laws between universals and particulars, etc.
The more I hear Greg Bahnsen, the more secure I feel as an atheist. He was asked for proof that the Bible was inspired by God and he said that the people who wrote it wrote in it that it was. Genius. Who could fail to be impressed by logic like that?
What proof do you have that you exist? How can you trust that your brain is telling you the truth if you believe that just matter exists. How do you get truth from matter.
@@breambo3835 I freely admit that I cannot tell whether reality as I experience it is ultimate reality or not. I have no way of knowing if I am in fact a brain in a vat. We'll see if you can be that straight with me if we continue this conversation. The thing is, the "reality question" is completely and utterly irrelevant. I am in what appears to me to be reality. It surrounds me entirely and governs everything I do, think and feel. It's the only one I can experience and the only one I can investigate. If there is a higher reality controlling my reality, I cannot know about it, explore it, do anything with the concept, or even have any reason to think it is even there. My reality is the only one that has any relevance to me, so I keep my efforts to understand things within that realm. I can do nothing else. Now, can you explain to me how you get from "You cannot be absolutely certain of ultimate reality" to "therefore God"? I can't get there myself. I just don't see the route. Presuppositional apologetics seems to think that the "reality question" is a get-out-of-jail-free card that enables the proponent to just insert his/her own theistic proposition without offering any evidence. The god proposition is completely unfounded regardless of whether I can be certain of ultimate reality or not, so I have no belief in it. I have more to say but I don't want to put readers off with a huge comment but I'm happy to continue if you wish.
@@philb4462 I agree with you that we could be a "brain in a vat" an "Avatar in a computer game" or in the "Matrix" . But then you make what i think is a contradiction to your statement by saying "I am in what appears to me to be reality" Here you are using your 'reason and logic' to come to this conclusion. But, based on what you have claimed about your reality, how do you know that your 'reasoning and logic' is valid for you to come to this conclusion. To assume your reasoning is valid is to argue in a circle because you may be using your invalid reasoning to validate your reasoning. So the question is, 'where does reason and logic come from'. They do not come from matter as they are immaterial abstract entities, they did not evolve, so where did they come from. The best explanation for our reasoning and logic to be valid is that they our grounded in an all reasoning, all logical, highly intelligent being, which is God. This is the only way we can know that we have valid reasoning. Our moral values are grounded in God, there is no good and evil without God. God is the best explanation for our existence , the beginning of the universe, and the fine tuning in the universe to make life possible here on Earth. As theist we use many evidences to build a cumulative case for the existence of God and logic and reason is just one piece of evidence. If logic and reason are grounded in God then science cannot be done without positing God first. You cannot do science or reason about anything without God.
@@breambo3835 What you wrote here is to lofty for the atheist. They cannot provide an intellectual answer as pertaining to what you have just mentioned.
That guys answer's was a whole lot of nothing. We did't come to take about this but..... In terms of the Christian world view............ Those who reject the bible are fools............ The guy asked for proof and he gets preached at and an insight into christian theology. Objective proof is independent of theistic belief. If you have to state that it is the christian view and " you may not believe this but..." Then I think there is something a little wrong. " You can have your opinions but not your truths"
+muzikalwon1 Are you kidding? How can you have a non-theistic proof that the Bible is inspired BY GOD? Of course you have to have God before you have a God inspired Bible. And it seems you don't understand Bahnsen's argument for the existence of God.
Without God you can not make sense of any proofs whatsoever. You end up appealing to your own reasoning to authenticate your own reasoning, which is a viciously circular argument.
Most atheists essentially claim they need to see "God in the flesh" to believe. I'm not so sure. God in the flesh came to Earth and he was STILL executed by unbelievers. Some people just refuse to believe, they cannot be reasoned with, this is foolishness/dullness.
it’s a matter of scientific, computer mathematics… 40 prophecies of Jesus Christ’s first advent, and it all came into fruition on the money. do the math yourself, but the figure that comes up is 10^157. that’s a ten with a hundred and fifty seven zeroes after it. that number of *atoms* couldn’t fit into our observable universe.
The fall of Tyre and Alexander the Great are just 2 prophecies, verified by linguistic and historical analysis, which demonstrate the divine inspiration of the Bible.
Hey, I've noticed that in your video, only the right audio channel is working, and the left one is missing. Could you please fix this? Thanks
In 1910 a Russian American Harvard math genius and linguistic expert named Ivan Panin proved the Bible mathematically with incontrovertible evidence. Watch - Math proves the Bible. More recently it was proven forensically by J Warner Wallace, a cold case homicide detective, in his book, “Person of Interest”. Wallace gives ample evidence to convince any jury the veracity of the Bible. Bible firsts include: knowing about ocean springs and mountains in the oceans, that life is in the blood, that the earth hangs on nothing and is a sphere, and there is much more, including foreknowledge of Orion’s belt being gravitationally bound together!
The only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything.
Cornelius Van Til
Ouch! He asked the wrong question. So, that's what he got. That's painful.
全部の討論がありますか？
Wow!!
Hammer Antwort!
2:51 Romans 1 indeed does mention the Gospel as a power of salvation, but it is not clear that the "foolishness" and "shameful" part has to do with rejecting Gospel.
More likely, it refers to knowing there is one God from the philosophy of Plato or Aristotle or similar reasonings, and still accepting the inherited (at one earlier stage the new Nimrodian or soon post-Nimrodian) paganism and polytheism.
Do you have any other references than Romans 1 for the claim "all who reject the Bible are reduced to foolishness," or similar?
In the Bible, that is.
@@hglundahl 1 Corinthians 3: 19? Psalm 14: 1? Proverbs 9: 10? It is a pretty common theme in both Paul's writing and the wisdom literature of the Old Testament (so it predates Plato and Aristotle) that unbelief is foolishness and that wisdom is from God. I don't see how we could even read such statements as specifically targeting particular philosophies instead of all non-Biblical worldviews. It's not like any Bible author would say that Plato sucks but the Baal-worshipers are fine.
How can Paul be speaking of the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle when he contradicts them many times in his epistles?
Book says so. Therefore true
He says God claims that the Scriptures are His words. Where? In the Scriptures themselves?
Don't take me wrong: I'm no atheist. But this guy's theology seems to hold little to no water.
He should rather start with a philosophical exposition of how Christians know God and judge the Scriptures' inspiration and validity based on that initial knowledge. Otherwise, any book can claim to be inspired and be believed having nothing solid as proof.
Saying Jesus fullfills prophecies is of some help but still problematic. Good were the times when Christians and pagans would debate ideas, not groundless assertions (be it Sola Scripture or scientific humanism).
You have said in your comment that his theology “seems to hold little to no water” and that “he should rather start with a philosophical exposition.”
You have reasoned, and you have asserted, based on established principles of logic, etc.
And so the point (which you seem to have overlooked) is quite simple: what is your basis for these principles, if not the Scriptures? How do you account for them? And remember, we are talking here about the preconditions to intelligibility. And so they must be objectively true, and absolute. This is what you must account for. And please note that it is not enough for you to say, “Well, it’s not the Bible…” Because the Christian rebuttal to that is clear: provide a basis, apart from the Bible. Since we all live in this world, and we all make sense of it, it is incumbent upon all of us to do this. We would assert, within the Christian worldview, that apart from the Scriptures, there is no basis for absolutes, for truth - truth, which is truth by definition, because it is objectively true.
Prove us wrong.
@@alienrighteousness Sorry, do you want a foundation for what principles? Principles of logic? Looking firward for an answer. Have a good day.
@@axelbatalha2830Any and all absolutes. The laws of logic are indeed absolute, and so yes, a basis for the preconditions to intelligibility would include the laws of logic.
@@alienrighteousness I imagine that by principle of logic you mean that by which logic comes about. Now, as logic has two meanings, λογος and επιστήμη λογική, the principle of the first is human intellect, without which no speech as logos would come to be, whereas the principle of the second is opinion as opinion is the principle of epistheme. Given how tge word principle is flexible, other principles may be pointed out.
By laws of logic I suppose you mean the excluded third, the form of syllogisms, deductions, the laws between universals and particulars, etc.
The more I hear Greg Bahnsen, the more secure I feel as an atheist.
He was asked for proof that the Bible was inspired by God and he said that the people who wrote it wrote in it that it was. Genius. Who could fail to be impressed by logic like that?
What proof do you have that you exist? How can you trust that your brain is telling you the truth if you believe that just matter exists. How do you get truth from matter.
@@breambo3835
I freely admit that I cannot tell whether reality as I experience it is ultimate reality or not. I have no way of knowing if I am in fact a brain in a vat. We'll see if you can be that straight with me if we continue this conversation.
The thing is, the "reality question" is completely and utterly irrelevant. I am in what appears to me to be reality. It surrounds me entirely and governs everything I do, think and feel. It's the only one I can experience and the only one I can investigate. If there is a higher reality controlling my reality, I cannot know about it, explore it, do anything with the concept, or even have any reason to think it is even there. My reality is the only one that has any relevance to me, so I keep my efforts to understand things within that realm. I can do nothing else.
Now, can you explain to me how you get from "You cannot be absolutely certain of ultimate reality" to "therefore God"? I can't get there myself. I just don't see the route. Presuppositional apologetics seems to think that the "reality question" is a get-out-of-jail-free card that enables the proponent to just insert his/her own theistic proposition without offering any evidence. The god proposition is completely unfounded regardless of whether I can be certain of ultimate reality or not, so I have no belief in it.
I have more to say but I don't want to put readers off with a huge comment but I'm happy to continue if you wish.
@@philb4462 I agree with you that we could be a "brain in a vat" an "Avatar in a computer game" or in the "Matrix" . But then you make what i think is a contradiction to your statement by saying "I am in what appears to me to be reality" Here you are using your 'reason and logic' to come to this conclusion. But, based on what you have claimed about your reality, how do you know that your 'reasoning and logic' is valid for you to come to this conclusion. To assume your reasoning is valid is to argue in a circle because you may be using your invalid reasoning to validate your reasoning.
So the question is, 'where does reason and logic come from'. They do not come from matter as they are immaterial abstract entities, they did not evolve, so where did they come from. The best explanation for our reasoning and logic to be valid is that they our grounded in an all reasoning, all logical, highly intelligent being, which is God. This is the only way we can know that we have valid reasoning.
Our moral values are grounded in God, there is no good and evil without God. God is the best explanation for our existence , the beginning of the universe, and the fine tuning in the universe to make life possible here on Earth. As theist we use many evidences to build a cumulative case for the existence of God and logic and reason is just one piece of evidence.
If logic and reason are grounded in God then science cannot be done without positing God first. You cannot do science or reason about anything without God.
@@breambo3835 What you wrote here is to lofty for the atheist. They cannot provide an intellectual answer as pertaining to what you have just mentioned.
@@dynamicloveministries334 Which is the "foolishness" Dr. Bahnsen speaks about.
That guys answer's was a whole lot of nothing.
We did't come to take about this but.....
In terms of the Christian world view............
Those who reject the bible are fools............
The guy asked for proof and he gets preached at and an insight into christian theology.
Objective proof is independent of theistic belief. If you have to state that it is the christian view and " you may not believe this but..." Then I think there is something a little wrong. " You can have your opinions but not your truths"
+muzikalwon1 Are you kidding? How can you have a non-theistic proof that the Bible is inspired BY GOD? Of course you have to have God before you have a God inspired Bible. And it seems you don't understand Bahnsen's argument for the existence of God.
Without God you can not make sense of any proofs whatsoever. You end up appealing to your own reasoning to authenticate your own reasoning, which is a viciously circular argument.
Tom Clark thank you for this. I'm surprised people don't realise this
Your reply is the very proof of him being correct in what he stated.
Most atheists essentially claim they need to see "God in the flesh" to believe. I'm not so sure. God in the flesh came to Earth and he was STILL executed by unbelievers. Some people just refuse to believe, they cannot be reasoned with, this is foolishness/dullness.