If you noticed, the words from the source spoke of historical AND verifiable facts concerning these books. Rather than throw up the smokescreen of "who is your source" and "how do I know they are authoritative", why not simply verify if what they said actually happened? I realize that this is the "go to" argument when the facts cannot be refuted, but don't you think we are all wise to that by now? Obviously, whatever source "we" quote will be unacceptable to "you" and, though it is a convenient subterfuge tactic, it can only work for so long. Y'all have started a dialog, a conversation, where you have criticized others who do not hold to the same viewpoint as you about the contents of the Bible. Why not refute the facts as they are presented? Reverting to the "Is it up to everyone to be their own authority on what is an authoritative source?" canard is more than a little insulting at this stage. Don't you think?
If one starts with the knowledge that the original scriptures are indeed “authoritative” and that God did indeed preserve for us a “source” of His written word then we can begin to establish a base. The admonition to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” was and is wise advice. I have found that trusting any one “source” other than scripture itself is tenuous at best. I don’t use the “cynical” part of my name here in a frivolous manner. I have found that “trust but verify” is not only wise but is necessary if one wants to avoid being led astray. Even searching out the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words has led to a better understanding of the intent and meaning of scripture. Putting ones trust in any other than God alone will lead to disastrous consequences.
The question and post were not addressed to you for a reason. I don’t you can answer for them, though I do appreciate your thoughts on it.
The question and post were not addressed to you for a reason. I don’t think you can answer for them, though I do appreciate your thoughts on it.