Defending the existence of God

[Papa Zoom]

Spiritless is when you do what you think is the right thing to do...you own will. If Paul had listened to the Spirit in him, he might have preached longer and been even more fruitful through the witnessing of the Holy Spirit in Him. (Study acts 21: 1-26)

How are the videos spiritless?

 

[Douglas Summers]

It has nothing to do with my agreeing with him. Do you reject reason in offering arguments for the existence of God?

I don't need to reason with people that God exist. It is God in me that reveals Himself. God witnesses Himself. The reason many Christian do not understand that or even believe it is because they are always running ahead of the Lord.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I don't need to reason with people that God exist. It is God in me that reveals Himself. God witnesses Himself. The reason many Christian do not understand that or even believe it is because they are always running ahead of the Lord.

This makes no sense. The topic is about defending the existence of God. You don't need that for yourself of course. And there isn't a single Christian on the planet earth that has to be convinced that God exists. If you don't believe God exists, you aren't a Christian. That said, this question of defending the existence of God has to do with how we deal with non-believers. You can't simply say God speaks or reveals Himself to you since other faiths make the same claim. You can't simply say God witnesses Himself because it begs the question and is circular.

So what do you say to the skeptic or atheist?

 

[Papa Zoom]

BTW, "The creation itself is a witness of God.(Rom. 1:19-20) is itself part of the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument. So you can't escape defending the existence of God even apart from Scripture. We are given a brain and the rules of logic to use.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I don't need to reason with people that God exist. It is God in me that reveals Himself.

And actually you do need to reason with other's why you believe God exists.
1 Peter 3:15

 

[Wrg1405]

I don't need to reason with people that God exist. It is God in me that reveals Himself. God witnesses Himself. The reason many Christian do not understand that or even believe it is because they are always running ahead of the Lord.

I do get where you are coming from and trying to relay. Truth is God does not need us to reason with others that he exists, he can and does reveal himself without us.

But I think he has asked us to be witnesses for him and to reveal him to others. I think Jesus did that "If you have seen me then you have seen the Father" Jesus rebuked those with a false concept of the Father and even talked to those who did not know the Father.

I have to be honest and say that we do need to reason with people that God exists. Not always with words but alway with actions, at times words do not affect and at times they do but always actions do.

 

[Free]

Spiritless is when you do what you think is the right thing to do...you own will. If Paul had listened to the Spirit in him, he might have preached longer and been even more fruitful through the witnessing of the Holy Spirit in Him. (Study acts 21: 1-26)

I really don't know what your point is here.

In what way are these videos "spiritless"?

 

[turnorburn]

What do you think that verse is saying? Is it saying that all intelligent people can't enter the kingdom of heaven? Or is it saying that only ignorant people can enter the kingdom of heaven?

No, I'm reiterated...

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz is right. Your post was way off. We are to use our intellect in matters of the faith. Understanding the arguments that secular society uses against matters of faith and the existence of God is simply smart. And God expects this from us. To throw out the mind is to ignore a directive from God to love him also with the mind. The videos are standard arguments that have been around for many, many years. It's important Christians use their mind in all the ways possible to be prepared to give a defense for the hope we have.

Thanks, Papa.

Dealing with correct thinking and the intellect seems to be a regular point of challenge by some people who want to be more spiritual by throwing out the thinking ability and replacing with the Spirit only.

However, I'm reminded of these Scriptures:

• Isa 1:18 (ESV): ‘Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool’.
• Eph 4:23 (ESV): ‘to be renewed in the spirit of your minds‘.

The real danger for the new or older Christian is to think with worldly perspectives. Therefore, an important part of our growing up in Jesus (sanctification) is renewing of the mind.

Here in Australia at the moment we are being inundated by the mass media in promotion of homosexual marriage (which they call marriage equality). Some evangelical Christians have fallen for this carrot with the conclusion that to love people we must allow them to choose their own sexual orientation. On the basis of 1 Cor 6:9-11 (ESV) that is not godly thinking. We need to renew our minds concerning worldly sexuality, etc. The less obvious is the music that goes on in our churches with light content in lyrics and music styles that are more like night clubs with lead singer and back-up singers.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No, I'm reiterated...

You are reiterated? That's a new one on me.

 

[Free]

No, I'm reiterated...

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

What does that verse have to do with this discussion? How does that verse answer my questions?

 

[OzSpen]

Is this in a format a child could understand?

edit* forgot this..

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

They are not designed for children.

If you want to teach children theology, try Colin Buchanan:

Oz

 

[Papa Zoom]

What does that verse have to do with this discussion? How does that verse answer my questions?

I was wondering the same thing. I actually hate it when someone simply quotes verse after verse without explanation. I can't guess at someone's thinking. My first thought of the previous post was it had nothing to do with anything we are discussing.

 

[turnorburn]

What does that verse have to do with this discussion? How does that verse answer my questions?

How can a Christian defend the existence of God when they are faced with this?

"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm
By Floyd Nolen Jones.

In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15 reads:

How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
...Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.

However, the New International Version pens:

How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
...but you are brought down to the grave.

Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer.
In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB – not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel (Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also Rev 2:28 and 2Peter 1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (2Peter 1:19, cp. Luke 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing 2Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from
lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (1Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you.

This is an excerpt from Which Version is the Bible?, ©1996 Floyd Nolen Jones, Twelfth edition. All Rights Reserved. "This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission."

 

[turnorburn]

You are reiterated? That's a new one on me.

i doubt it...

 

[Free]

How can a Christian defend the existence of God when they are faced with this?

"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm
By Floyd Nolen Jones.

In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15 reads:

How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
...Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.

However, the New International Version pens:

How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
...but you are brought down to the grave.

Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer.
In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB – not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel (Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also Rev 2:28 and 2Peter 1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (2Peter 1:19, cp. Luke 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing 2Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from
lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (1Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you.

This is an excerpt from Which Version is the Bible?, ©1996 Floyd Nolen Jones, Twelfth edition. All Rights Reserved. "This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission."

What do problems with the KJV have to do with this thread? Nothing. So instead of avoiding some simple questions, I would appreciate your answers.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz was right because you agree with him, not because he was right as to the ministry of the Spirit.. Self will and ministering for Christ by the wisdom of the flesh. People have a zeal for God, but the Spirit is not given us to give us power, but the indwelling Spirit works through us to manifest its self. Man can not accept that God not only saved us by faith, but has made us a vessel to house the Holy Spirit to manifest God in us. God working through us, not us working for God.

This is offensive towards the intent of my OP. The OP dealt with William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith Animated Videos, defending the existence of God, which doesn't seem to be of interest to you.

However, accusing me of no 'ministry of the Spirit' and 'self will and ministering for Christ by the wisdom of the flesh' is not only flaming and goading me, it is blatantly false.

Oz

 

[Papa Zoom]

How can a Christian defend the existence of God when they are faced with this?

"O Lucifer, son of the morning" - The Sounding of an Alarm
By Floyd Nolen Jones.

In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15 reads:

How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
...Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.

However, the New International Version pens:

How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
...but you are brought down to the grave.

Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer.
In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB – not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel (Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also Rev 2:28 and 2Peter 1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (2Peter 1:19, cp. Luke 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing 2Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from
lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (1Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you.

This is an excerpt from Which Version is the Bible?, ©1996 Floyd Nolen Jones, Twelfth edition. All Rights Reserved. "This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission."

Your post doesn't address the OP. But FWIW: https://gotquestions.org/morning-star.html

 

[turnorburn]

What do problems with the KJV have to do with this thread? Nothing. So instead of avoiding some simple questions, I would appreciate your answers.

No problems with my bible Free but i can see many with the ones referred to in that post..

 

[Papa Zoom]

What do problems with the KJV have to do with this thread? Nothing. So instead of avoiding some simple questions, I would appreciate your answers.

I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing that.