Bible bashing proves God is real

The attacks against God, based on an old historical document (the Bible) prove that God is real, very real.

Followers of Jesus base their faith in God on the evidence of Scripture.  Skeptics and atheists use the Bible to convince themselves and others that God is a myth.  The apostle Peter has an insightful remark, ‘Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you.  I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.’ 1  The emphasis is on wholesome (logical) thinking: 

The attacks on the Bible prove its value.

The attacks on the Bible are very interesting.  Nobody attacks a dead duck.  The ruler of this world hates God. He influences people to do the same.  He knows that God and Scripture is true, and he does his best to try to change that.  If God was not real, the devil wouldn’t waste his time influencing people to attack God and evangelise for hell.

The Bible is a timeless book.

It is miraculous that an ancient book (around for almost 2,000 years) never faded from sight.  Today it is as relevant as a thousand years ago.  We see how people like Richard Dawkins and the many unbelievers use Bible information as their basis for rejecting God.

#  The Bible is a historical document.

How do we know that historical data is true?

  • For example, did Napoleon Bonaparte really live long ago?  Many historical documents report the wars he fought, the countries he conquered and the changes he instituted.  The countries he fought against, like England and Russia are not mere figments of the imagination.  They are real.
  • Similarly the Bible is a historical document that testifies to an invisible omnipotent Creator God.  The history of the Romans, the Greeks, the Assyrians are well attested to.  Israel where most of the events of the Bible took place, is real.

#  The theme of the Bible is universal

God reveals His plan for man in the Bible.  The devil tries his best to keep people from discovering that glorious hope.

Conclusion

The attacks against God, based on an old historical document (the Bible), prove that God is real, very real.  It should be an encouragement to believers that this fight against God is so fierce in our times.  We have reason to trust Scripture, and to glorify our Lord Jesus.

References

  1. 2 Peter 3:1
  2. 1 John 5:19

Author: Gerard and Alida

As you can see in the photo, there are two of us. We live and work together 24/7, studying and enjoying our grandchildren. Our passion is to know and understand what will happen after death. Is there a way to provide for and invest in that?

8 thoughts on “Bible bashing proves God is real”

  1. If one were to write a book filled with supernatural claims today, would it be considered evidence if no proof of said claims could be offered?

    One imaginary being cannot be used as evidence to the existence of another imaginary being. Self deprecating reason.

    Humans are a species of advanced sociality as developed through entropic adaptation. To sight religion as a sustainable social construct is to be ignorant of the inherent function of sociality as a whole. For without entropic adaptation, no species would survive even the slightest change of environment. Thus, to point to material of a social construct as timeless — rigid to any changes in social function, is counterintuitive — providing imperical evidence to the unsustainable nature of religion as a whole, much less the teachings of a society long extinct.

    The bible cannot be sighted as a historical document, as it contains contradictions to accounts within its own material.

    As for the bible being offered as a universal theme, the arguments presented under that title offers no correlation. What is the theme and why is it universal?

    If god knows all, and can offer precise insight to the actions of individuals (hence the large array of prophecies), what is the meaning of life if everyone’s outcome is known? The fundamental paradox offered by prophecy as determining the outcome of said actions is both cruel and counterintuitive. For in doing so, any prophecy as determining the outcome of ones actions is to force those involved in performing those actions — categorically eliminating them from free will. To revere this as a capability of someone who is kind and loving is both nonsensical and distorted. Of this, who with an ounce of reason can defend such concepts as the ideal outcome of humanity — enslaved in a prescribed fate long before most were born.

    The fundamental concept of religion exists as only a social construct — by definition. Hence, the principal trait of a social construct lies in the body of subjective claims — categorically blind in reaching any definitive truth whatsoever.

    Like

    1. Dear ‘Mr Drexus,’ thanks for your letter.
      The issue on free will is so important, we will discuss it in a blog post. Please read it and give your comments.

      On the Bible having a universal theme (if I understand you correctly) – it is an excellent question which we also would like to address in a blog.

      You claim that the Bible as a historical document cannot be accepted, since it contains contradictions. Will you please furnish us with some examples, preferably with the Bible quotations.

      Could you clarify what you mean by the following:

      ‘Humans are a species of advanced sociality as developed through entropic adaptation…much less the teachings of a society long extinct.’

      ‘The fundamental concept of religion…categorically blind in reaching any definitive truth whatsoever.’

      ‘One imaginary being cannot be used as evidence to the existence of another imaginary being. Self deprecating reason.’

      Does it mean that you think God is an imaginary being? As we understand it, Genesis 1, creation in six days is one of the strongest evidences that an omnipotent eternal God exists. If you dispute it, would you please furnish us with any scientific proofs that counter it. Take note, scientific proofs, not speculations. Science is testable, observable and repeatable.

      Thanks, and blessings

      Like

      1. First:
        The function of entropic adaptation is simple. The changed state of an environment (physical, social, or any other contributing sensory as affecting the function of a species) represents a shift in an environment. This equates to (but not limited to) your work environment, home life environment, physical environment (climate, dwelling, etc.), as defining the conditions of one’s existence.

        Change in social environment affects how our sociality responds. Our sociality is responsible for that sense of care towards our children — much like many other species do as ensuring the survival of their young, and in turn, their species as a whole.

        The social aspect of humanity is far different than it was 100 years ago. Back then we didn’t socialize through electronic means, or drive cars to our jobs. We worked in a different capacity as defined by the economic, social, and physical environments of that time. Those environments defined our function, and thus changes in those environments resulted in changes in our function.

        As these environments changed with more efficient and capable methods, we changed in turn.

        The fact that religion is a social construct defines religion as influenced by society. For you cannot have religion without social consensus on how that social construct is defined. The trouble with any social construct (healthcare, public education, free speech, law enforcement, etc.) are the subjective ingredients used in defining the shape of said social construct. Thus, the education system was far different 100 years ago. It has advanced as the growth of knowledge increased. We simply know how to do things we never did before. Our children are smarter than we were at their age.

        If you reinstate the education, medical, or social practices of 100 years ago, would those social constructs be as accepted now as they were back then? Would you feel safe if you received medical attention as understood and practiced — ignoring all the technology and advancement these past 100 years?

        What about education? Would you feel well educated if all you learned was from that period? Could you get a job today knowing only what was understood 100 years ago?

        Likewise, as religion is a social construct (subjective in it’s definition and function) it represents a contributing social feature of a society long extinct — only because religion maintains no advancement is possible. Can you look to the teachings of 1000 years ago in how to run your life today? What about 7000 years ago?Can you say the shape of society from that period is sustainable today? We advance through entropic adaptation: Adapting to the changes in the current environment while remembering the previous environment. If we didn’t do this, we as a species wouldn’t survive the slightest change in climate — by getting a warmer sweater when it became colder.

        Second:
        A social construct exists only by the consensus of all members as agreeing on its shape and function. It isn’t something you can hold in your hand or point your finger at. It’s inherently abstract in its existence. As a result, you can’t measure it or contain it. Therefore, it’s function is based on the opinions and understandings by individuals. From this you get many religions based on the writings of a single collection of writings. Some include some writings, and some exclude others. Then there are those who base their religion on completely different writings, and that’s fine.

        However you slice it, interpretation becomes the critical limiting factor in determining anything with absolute certainty. If there were absolute clarity in the interpretation of the bible, then there might only be one religion in the whole world. But given the language and culture are from this long extinct society, the unwritten aspects that would transcend language and time are lost — not included in the writings. So it quickly becomes the science of understanding the culture and social function from those times as critical in extracting clear meaning. Still, the writings of the bible were never written at the time when things happened. Most of the books were written hundreds of years after the fact.

        In the end, the core limitation of the bible as providing accurate meaning rests with far too many variables and interpretations — starting with the writer who wrote their respective books.

        So yes, the concept of religion is categorically blind to ever offering absolute truth in the function of a society thousands of years ago — a society who’s teaching and functions were only in use at that time. To that, nothing of that period is applicable to today – for we as a species of sociality have clearly grown, adapted to the many changes as our sociality has evolved over time. To enact anything from one environment is scientifically unsustainable in a different environment: Scientific process 101.

        Third:
        I’m not sure I can explain the last comment with more clarity. To say the bible offers the truth, as self-qualified in it saying so — is no different than someone saying they’re the smartest person alive: because they said so. The scientific method only works on empirical evidence. If one were to say 4+4=10, we could test the claim through reason and provide proof to the contrary. That’s how the scientific method works. You can offer any number of hypotheses you like, however, you then need to develop testable predictions to support the claim. After that, gather data from those tests and refine the hypothesis. If you have enough evidence through testing to support the claim, you can generate a theory, make more observations, question the results, and generate more hypothesis to the results of your supporting tests.

        If the bible makes a claim, where is the factual evidence if said claims cannot survive the second step of the scientific method, much less the remaining 5 steps?

        God is an imaginary concept that cannot be proven by referencing another imaginary concept. Else, one might say their god told them to murder other people — as only they can hear the words of their god. For this, you need to invoke faith over reason — faith as untenable to any test or measurement. As a result, the bible predicting the earth as being created in 6 days requires proof. Where is the proof of this claim as taken place in such as short period?

        As for the contradictions in the bible, there are many. Given I’ve spent 30+ years studying these writings, I would point to contradictions of principal, rather than interpretations. For god to instruct us all as children of equal value, why then were the Israelites his “chosen” people? Why claim favouritism for a people knowing this would lead to conflict — given the outcome of Cain and Able?

        If jealousy is a sin, why then does the bible identify god as a jealous god? What of pride and placing one self above others? Was this not the principal teaching of Jesus? After all, Jesus was said to be a humble servant — who walked in modest sandals and gave to all (not wanting wealth: give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar) — who then told all others to be christian (Christ-like). What do we see today? Architectural monoliths adorned with paintings and the rich spoils of man. Priests as figureheads over all mankind while wearing gold and crowns on their heads — having amassed so much wealth, they have their own banks to manage it all. Where is the humility and Christ-like examples here? Where is the humility in constructing man made structures of towering dimension? Where is the humility by asking people to kiss their rings? What writings provide such authority not just over people, but in appointing saints as extensions to the function of religion?

        Where is the humility in the acts of the god as described in the bible? Where is the evidence of love thy neighbour while slaughtering an entire civilization? Are these teachings for the human species, or is this the creative writings of a society long extinct — as a lost chapter in human evolution?

        No evidence is offered by claiming the bible as a moral centre for an advanced species of sociality. Any writings that demands our humble compliance in doing one thing, while committing the crime of precisely the opposite could possibly earn a shred of credibility. If all mankind are the children of god, what of the blatant use of concubines and slaves? Where are the “fruits of the spirit” in throwing your own daughter out to the men of the street in favour of sheltering a man of unknown character? The array of contradictions are appalling in the writings of the bible.

        If such writings are in conflict with themselves for even that period — just how applicable are those writings today? Absolutely not. Evidence: The sad fact is, most wars in human history were because of religion. Why? Because religion is a subjective social construct. Religion offers no common ground when it comes to sustainable social function in any society past or present. To remain blind of these fundamental failings is to compromise the sustainability of one’s own existence.

        If one needs guidance in sustainable social function, look not to the conflicted writings of an uncivilized era. Live your life as supporting sustainable social adaptation. If you need help, the core teachings of the bible can be easily superseded with one sentence: The rights of any individual are equal to their maximum potential, while never affecting the rights of others. For Universal Rights are biological, not social.

        As a scientist, I request to be presented with the imperial evidence that supports your claim (Gen. 1). To that, you cannot use the bible as providing proof for itself. Use science as testable and repeatable.

        Like

      2. Greetings “Mr Drexus’

        We will discuss the following subjects, which you made us aware of, on the blog:
        What the Bible is about
        Proof that God is real and not an imaginary concept.
        The Bible and history
        Lot
        Lot’s wife
        Killing entire nations
        Jealous God
        What is religion?
        Religion evolved
        What does the Old Testament have to do with us?
        The difference between science and the Bible
        Slavery in the Bible

        As you are a scientist we expect erudite scholarship and a thorough investigation of the Bible. Yet:

        You make a statement about Lot. Can I accept you made a careful study of Genesis 12-19, including what the Holy Spirit wants to teach us in 2016?

        You claim most books of the Bible were written hundreds of years after the fact. Yet you give no specific proofs for your statement.

        Your discussion of the ‘jealous’ God is another proof that you did not study the difference between God and the various idols and other things the people tended to worship. The Israelites committed themselves to follow God, voluntarily. If the idols could provide eternal life, fine. God says they cannot. God is like a father who guards over his children and does not want them to mix with drug dealers and criminals. Today we will probably be forced to applaud the father who wants his children to get involved with people who might destroy them.

        Your failure to differentiate between the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Churches is unsatisfying.

        Blessings

        Like

      3. I will entertain nothing of “what the holy spirit wants to teach us in 2016” — for this would be an exercise in subjective interpretation — categorically void of any scientific value. What truths could be found in arguing the small aspects beneath the fundamental failings of a subjective account?

        This is akin to arguing which cake tastes better by only looking at the ingredients in a recipe book — ignorant to the subjective outcome of personal taste were they actually baked.

        To open the door on the nature of variances between religions is to validate what? Is it that under more subjective interpretation from a collection of books spanning hundreds of years might somehow reveal a critical truth as explaining how an extinct civilization fraught with war and human atrocities — could now be a guiding social code for all humanity today?

        In this, I care not to wrestle with a pig. Rather, on principle I would stay on topic and ask: what kind of intelligent god requires faith instead of evidence — as supporting claims of the bible.

        I’ve not claimed the Bible was written hundreds of years after the fact. No, I claimed many of the books in the bible were written hundreds of years after the fact. From the perspective of science, this by itself is cause for dismissing all of what’s written.

        You are welcome to dispute the small aspects of the bible for yourself — after all, this is what humanity has done under the divided leadership of religious sects since the inception of religion as a whole. Enter the catalyst of war and faith based hypocrisy.

        As a scientist, I await evidence as to your claim the earth is < 10,000 years old. Also, I await the evidence that explains how every animal from Noah’s ark swam the oceans to the far off continents — including the south pole. While you’re at it, why not explain the existence of fossils hundreds of thousands of layers deep in the earth’s crust? Science has explained these with absolute precision — testable and repeatable.

        On the moral side, how is it that god guards over his children? From who… his other children? What warped sense of morality from a being that claims to have made the entire universe — but fails to include all of mankind? How narrow and limited to offer favouritism while claiming to be the creator of all — while choosing the most illiterate and volatile society of the period? What does that say of such a god if the intention was to disseminate one’s teachings — sidestepping the literate society of the Chinese?

        Perhaps the all knowing god as capable in offering prophecy into the future might have realized conflict stems from variance in opinion — and should offer more fact based evidence to his existence rather than accounts written in only a few select languages — oblivious to the shifts in dialect much less the losses in translation between languages or cultures.

        No, I can’t scientifically see proof of a supreme intelligence here. Simply put, if one was capable of knowing the future — enough to provide prophecy as still applicable today, what does this say of his character? Does it say the millions of lives lost in wars, famine, and disease — are all part of a grand plan? A plan that required thousands of years of suffering and violence? A plan that offers absolutely no bearing on today’s reality as contingent of a war between two ancient civilizations no longer existing today?

        In science, the evidence from statistical measurement indicates the probability of future outcomes as a reflection of past outcomes. In this context, what can be said of a supreme intelligence that created the universe and life itself — but failed miserably by letting a “perfect” angel become somehow imperfect, and fall to earth and corrupt the “perfect” creation of life? What of the evidence that followed as clear indicators our existence as a failed experiment? Would god have humanity as a trophy in his portfolio? Well, let’s see here… gone bad on day two, got worse from there — to the point humans now eliminate other species on a daily basis — towards their own extinction.

        With a track record like this, one must ask of the evidence for this master plan? Will humanity be saying the return of christ is soon upon us for another thousand years? How about a few more thousand years?

        No, it’s likely the teachings of the bible are just that: teachings from an uncivilized, intolerant, illiterate, and violent period. To look in those writings is to see what we once were, not what we are destined to become.

        You’re lack of evidence is unchanged — par for the course.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s