Bible Inquirer

I have been offering answers to what one atheist called The five best reasons not to believe in God .  The fourth reason offered by the atheist in this article is, "We don't need him."  He says, "This isn’t exactly an argument against the truth of God, but it is a reason to stop worrying about him. We don’t require God – he is an unnecessary addition to the universe, and it can get along perfectly well without him." If atheists are right and there is no God then I would concede we do not need a false pretense of one.  However, if a creator God does exist then of course we owe him for our very existence as the cause of the universe and can never hope to fully repay him for giving us life.  We do not merely rely on God for comfort or moral commandments. I am reminded of when President Kennedy said, "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."  Yes, we pray to God for help and comfort, but we were made to serve Go...

In a debate between Karl Keating (Catholic lay apologist) and Peter Ruckman (Baptist preacher and KVJ Onlyist who passed away in 2016), Keating argued that the only way to know the Bible is inspired is because the Catholic Church gave it to us and has the authority to tell us that it is inspired. Ruckman countered that we know the Bible is inspired because of mathematical probabilities.  He said, “…the proof of Biblical inspiration rests on prophecy.  It doesn’t rest on anything as obtuse as what anybody thinks about their religion.  That is immaterial.”  He then talked about the odds of 48 prophecies about one man all coming true. Ruckman gave some specific numbers, and I thought he probably did not do the math for this himself, so after a quick google search I found that these numbers apparently came from a man named Peter Stoner.  “Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the ma...

Atheists argue that life is better without religion, because you are free to do what you want and make your own decisions and not have to follow a bunch of made-up rules.  In this way of thinking religion, all religion, was created with the motive of controlling people.  Going back to prehistoric times, the shaman, priest or priestess could use the fears and superstitions of the ignorant masses to control them. I have to admit, as any honest person would, that religion certainly has been abused by people with selfish motives.  Also, many religious groups have nonsensical rules and are seemingly all about the rules.  I grew up in a denomination that had a lot of rules, but as an adult I left that denomination and have no intention of going back. Jesus was a rule-breaker and was often criticized by the Pharisees, the predecessors of Rabbinical Judaism, for his rule-breaking.  How could Jesus, who is supposed by Christians to be perfect also be a rule-breaker?...

Having addressed the problems of evidence for the existence of God and whether or not belief in God is illogical, now I would like to move on to a third objection to belief in God, the problem of suffering.  According to one atheist, "The existence of suffering is an impossible problem for believers in an all-good, caring God to solve."  [ The five best reasons not to believe in God ] An implicit assumption in such reasoning is that suffering is necessarily bad.  According to one dictionary definition, suffering is "the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship."  We know that we can learn from pain, distress, and hardship.  Suffering can build character, suffering can force people to do great things.  Without hardship there would be no heroes. But let's define suffering a little more narrowly as the atheists do.  Let's confine our discussion to such suffering as "suffering of innocent children and animals" and such hideous human acts as ...

I have been asked how can I believe that bread can become flesh and wine becomes blood?  In fact, by believing such an illogical and unscientific idea don't I just prove that my whole religion is illogical? So, let's get this straight.  I do not believe that there is some alchemical transformation taking place during Lord's Supper.  I do not believe that the blessing of a Christian minister or priest causes bread and wine to change their atomic or molecular structure. I have changed denominations a few times and so as time went by I was influenced by these different denominations and my own personal beliefs on the subject evolved over time.  While Roman Catholics have a doctrine which says the body and blood change their "substance" without changing their physical form ("transubstantiation"), this was rejected by Protestants. Among Protestants, the term "real presence" is often used by people who do not want to put too fine a definition o...

The ESV is currently the third best selling Bible translation behind the NIV (New International Version) and KJV (King James Version).   Like the KJV and the NIV, the ESV is an unapologetically Christian translation.  The ESV preface declares that the members of its translation team share "... a common commitment to the truth of God’s Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy..."   So, for example,  in Isaiah 7:14 the ESV  uses the English word "virgin" whereas some modern translations use "young woman".   The author of the book of Matthew, traditionally identified as the apostle and almost certainly a first century Jew, clearly understood this verse in Isaiah to be talking about a virgin.   The ESV is in agreement with the KJV, NIV, NLT and many other translations on this verse. The ESV is part of a long tradition of English translations whereas the NIV was a completely new translation with no relation to those that came b...