If you don't trust the Bible, Where do you look for truth?

[2timothy316]

What say you?
Also, if you don't see an option in the vote then add it in a comment.

[polonius]

That the number of Hebrews in Egypt went from Joseph and his brothers to 2.4 million Hebrews in about 400 years and they had a "Exodus" leaving behind "not even a single broken piece of pottery?

If you do, I have an acquaintance in Brooklyn who has a bridge to sell you!

Start your research on the University of Tel Aviv website.

Hint: No Hebrews in Egypt and no Exodus! Just one of those "you have to believe because its in the Bible " claims.

[onewithhim]

That the number of Hebrews in Egypt went from Joseph and his brothers to 2.4 million Hebrews in about 400 years and they had a "Exodus" leaving behind "not even a single broken piece of pottery?

If you do, I have an acquaintance in Brooklyn who has a bridge to sell you!

Start your research on the University of Tel Aviv website.

Hint: No Hebrews in Egypt and no Exodus! Just one of those "you have to believe because its in the Bible " claims.

I saw a documentary that showed evidence of the Hebrew presence in Egypt. There was more left in Egypt than people are told about. Plus the fact that no one is looking in the right place for evidence of the Exodus. Everyone has looked only on the western shore of the Sinai Peninsula and not on the eastern shore and the Gulf of Aqaba. They want to honor Constantine's mother and follow the Exodus down to what they say is Mt. Sinai, when the actual Mt. Sinai is beyond the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba.

[polonius]

That the number of Hebrews in Egypt went from Joseph and his brothers to 2.4 million Hebrews in about 400 years and they had a "Exodus" leaving behind "not even a single broken piece of pottery?

If you do, I have an acquaintance in Brooklyn who has a bridge to sell you!

Start your research on the University of Tel Aviv website.

Hint: No Hebrews in Egypt and no Exodus! Just one of those "you have to believe because its in the Bible " claims.

I saw a documentary that showed evidence of the Hebrew presence in Egypt. There was more left in Egypt than people are told about. Plus the fact that no one is looking in the right place for evidence of the Exodus. Everyone has looked only on the western shore of the Sinai Peninsula and not on the eastern shore and the Gulf of Aqaba. They want to honor Constantine's mother and follow the Exodus down to what they say is Mt. Sinai, when the actual Mt. Sinai is beyond the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba.

RESPONSE: Really? How about sharing this "evidence" with us. And of course, the experts at Tel Aviv University in Israel would probably like to know too.

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 41 by tam]

Again, how do you receive [strike]the[/strike] truth if not through the Bible? Is it a voice you hear?

I receive truth from THE Truth: Christ Jaheshua. It is His voice I listen to; the voice of the Good Shepherd.


From John 10:

“I am the Good Shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.




He speaks truth, from love, and He has never led me wrong. His words and His teachings reveal (and continue to reveal) the depth of His and His Father's great love. More than I even realized. One time, my Lord read me something from the bible in His voice (one of His prayers for His disciples), and hearing His words in His voice - hearing the love and the sincerity of that love in His voice - well, I could not hear that without being filled with love and gratitude in return.


"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."


Praise JAH, and His Son!


I shared my personal testimony (as well as His words, and what is written on the matter) here:

viewtopic.php?p=738377#738377


May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear; and may you hear as the Spirit (Christ) and the Bride say to you "Come!" May anyone who thirsts "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life."




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

[Replying to post 94 by tam]

[polonius]

[Replying to post 94 by tam]

And when did Jesus come the second time during the lifetime of some of those still alive as he had promised, do you say?

Or did he tell us a fib?

[bluegreenearth]

Language is important in any type of epistemology because it is the tool we use to communicate a coherent train of thought. Therefore, we need to ensure the words we choose to represent our thoughts are defined appropriately in order to minimize the potential for confusion. To begin with, let’s establish what it functionally means for a proposition to be true in the reality we all experience. A fact often overlooked in Christian apologetics and theological debates is that that truth is just a word which can be defined by whatever arbitrary metric we want when there is no agreed upon epistemological framework. For example, maybe I want to measure the truth of a proposition by its ability to make me feel emotionally satisfied or comfortable. Given that epistemology, I would be perfectly justified in believing my consciousness will survive beyond the physical death of my body because the proposition satisfies my instinct for self-preservation and provides me reassuring comfort. I could also define truth by anything which corroborates the perspective of an authority figure or dictates transcribed in an ancient text. In that instance, I would be completely justified in accepting the proposition that all fossils are evidence of a global flood which occurred only a few thousand years ago because such a claim agrees with bronze-age scriptures I’ve defined as being true. On the other hand, someone who defines truth differently will have no reason to accept those claims if they don’t satisfy the metrics set by their epistemology.

More commonly, truth is defined as that which corresponds with reality. This understanding of truth seems intuitive and tempts us to accept the definition without objection. The problem, though, is our perception of reality and what reality actually is may not be identical. Therefore, an objective method for determining if a claim actually corresponds with reality is not possible under that definition of truth. The limitation with many definitions of truth is that they are rendered useless by a fundamental and functional purpose for believing something is true. The pragmatic reason to believe anything is true at all is to use that information to guide our actions. Sooner or later, the truth of a claim is measured by its power to inform our decisions under the expectation of predictable outcomes. Decisions based on true beliefs will manifest themselves in the form of experiences that were correctly anticipated. Decisions based on false beliefs will eventually fail in that goal. Given that understanding, truth must be defined as follows:

TRUTH = A label or measure given to propositions which satisfy the requirements of a pragmatic epistemology.

[William]

[Replying to post 97]

Pragmatic Epistemology.
How useful is this in relation to Metaphysical ideas? [LINK]

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Decisions based on true beliefs will manifest themselves in the form of experiences that were correctly anticipated. Decisions based on false beliefs will eventually fail in !
that goal. Given that understanding, truth must be defined as follows:

TRUTH = A label or measure given to propositions which satisfy the requirements of a pragmatic epistemology.

So, in other words all of the moral truths for example that say the Church claims like her teachings on gluttony, adultery, casual sex, killing, stealing, coveting, etc.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Decisions based on true beliefs will manifest themselves in the form of experiences that were correctly anticipated. Decisions based on false beliefs will eventually fail in !
that goal. Given that understanding, truth must be defined as follows:

TRUTH = A label or measure given to propositions which satisfy the requirements of a pragmatic epistemology.

So, in other words all of the moral truths for example that say the Church claims like her teachings on gluttony, adultery, casual sex, killing, stealing, coveting, etc.

Using gluttony as an example, is it true that gluttony will objectively result in negative consequences to the glutton's health? Yes.

Is it true that gluttony is immoral? That answer depends on how your epistemology defines morality. If your epistemology defines moral truth as that which corresponds with the Bible's moral prescriptions, then it is true that gluttony is immoral because it is condemned in the scriptures. If your epistemology defines moral truth to be that which maximizes well-being and minimizes harm for the most people, than it is true that gluttony is immoral because consuming an excessive amounts of a limited quantity of food deprives other people from their fair share. If your epistemology defines moral truth to be that which provides personal pleasure regardless of the consequences to your overall well-being or the well-being of others, then it is not true that gluttony is immoral.