I found a good article online about presuppositional apologetics. Below is the link.
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12m.pdf
[Edited on 4-25-2006 by cih1355]
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12m.pdf
[Edited on 4-25-2006 by cih1355]
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by cih1355
If something else besides God's word authenticates God's word, then there is something else that has more authority than God's word.
Originally posted by Vytautas
Originally posted by cih1355
If something else besides God's word authenticates God's word, then there is something else that has more authority than God's word.
If the Bible is self-authenticating, then all that is needed to authenticate the Bible is to have a claim in the Bible that it is true. So if a book says that the Bible is true, thus authenticating it, then that book is true regardless of the book´s contents because it has more authority than God´s word. This is an absurd conclusion so it is false that evidence that authenticates the Bible is of a higher authority than the Bible.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
i may be wrong but i think he was implying that for the bible to be self authenticating, it needs no other "evidence" to prove it is true, and thus stands on its own as verification to its truth. since the bible is the highest form of "proof" and the standard by which truth is judged, asserting that something else could verify its authenticity would undermine the assertion that it proves itself and has ultimate authority.
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
it's not good unless Paul Manata say's it's good
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Vytautas
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
it's not good unless Paul Manata say's it's good
What is good? And why is Paul Manata an authority? Is it because of his background?
though he was probably joking, I'm nobody
Originally posted by Vytautas
Evidence could be marshaled when the claim to truth is under attack. What do you mean highest form of proof? Are some things truer than others?
So, there are things that are ultimate truths, very sure truths, moderately true things, and not so certain truths.
However, the words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. This means that the words are on an equal level.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
Originally posted by Vytautas
Evidence could be marshaled when the claim to truth is under attack. What do you mean highest form of proof? Are some things truer than others?
by proof i mean something that authenticates something else. this does not exclusively mean that something is true. for example, mormons have "proof" that their faith is right and so do muslims etc but this does not make their assertions correct, or true. how do i know that they are wrong? because i think so? how do i verify the falsity of the muslim assertions? those claims to truth contradict the bible which is the standard by which all other claims to truth may be judged.
Originally posted by Vytautas
So, there are things that are ultimate truths, very sure truths, moderately true things, and not so certain truths.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
youre building straw men. i never asserted there were different levels of truth. i would agree there can be relative or subjective truth and then there can be objective truth. the bible is not what i would define as subjective or relative truth.
Originally posted by Vytautas
However, the words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. This means that the words are on an equal level.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
which words? the actual greek? or hebrew? or small amount of aramaic? heres the kicker: God uses words of all languages to communicate truth to men. are english speaking bibles Gods word and chinese bibles not? words are merely tools to relay conceptions. which "words" are more important? try reading Gods Word in context.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Vytautas
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Vytautas
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
it's not good unless Paul Manata say's it's good
What is good? And why is Paul Manata an authority? Is it because of his background?
though he was probably joking, I'm nobody
Hegel says we get our personality in the State. Are you not part of the State?
you're equivocating on "nobody."
Originally posted by Vytautas
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
it's not good unless Paul Manata say's it's good
What is good? And why is Paul Manata an authority? Is it because of his background?