Excellent news: As of January 31, 2020, the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University is accredited by the Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools (ATS).
I studied the classics and Ancient Near Eastern religion and mythology (Greek, Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.) pretty extensively while getting my first degree in the 1980s. Now, in the seminary and studying the Bible, I can say with certainty that the Bible, its meanings, messages, implications, ramifications, theologies, and the recounting of the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ is “as far as the East is from the West” from the aforementioned. People say to me, “There are no first hand accounts of Jesus!” Yes, and there are no first accounts Alexander the Great...and he conquered most of Asia. People tend to be dismissive of subjects without bothering to study them. Many modern colleges and universities have devolved into crucibles of bizarre liberal theologies, progressivism, post-modernism, and self-serving new age spiritual modalities...it all just makes me double-down in my trust and faith in Christ. It’s not always an easy path...but it’s the only path for me. I don’t seek what is easy...I seek what Is right.
@@tamerajordan6858 Tamera, I regret that I just found your reply just now, if I had seen it I would have responded sooner. I respectful disagree, and my disagreement is based upon years of research and simple observation. the Bible, and more specifically, the OT does not originate from pagan religions, and the interview provides a rational discussion from an accomplished scholar explaining why they don't. They are substantively different in both worldview and perspective. It is these substantial differences that secular scholarship uncritically ignores. However, I appreciate that you took time to view the video. I highly recommend the you consider reading Dr. Oswalt's book. As to being truthful, with all my heart that is our intent. Blessings.
It seems to me however that a Christian must make certain assumptions and leaps of faith about the Bible PRIOR to study. For many, that is unacceptable.
That is an interesting perspective. But how is it that skeptics are given the benefit of the doubt that their positions come after a rigorous investigation of the Bible, but only Christians can make conclusions before a rigorous study of the Bible, one that is solely made from a decision of faith? Cannot someone make a disciplined investigation of the Bible, and then come to a conclusion to accept it and its message by faith? Moreover, isn't the assertion that there is no God or that the God of the Bible does not exist ultimately also a faith based decision?
@@askabibleprof7099 thanks for the reply, but I think a couple of points you have are not accurate. Firstly - I don't consider myself an atheist but I won't elaborate more on that here unless relevant. A sceptic is not given the benefit of any doubt, because they are a sceptic. A sceptic, or an atheist, is not making the claim that God does not exist. They can't do that. What they can say is that either 1. There isn't a sufficiently good argument proposed to accept that or 2. They have done a rigorous study of the bible and the bible comes up lacking. There is horror, judgement and great concern in the bible which many Christian folk deny of, or offer very little explanation of. So, the sceptic says after study of the bible I do not accept the premise, therefore I don't believe. Faith by definition is continuing to hold a belief without the evidence to do so. If it wasn't it wouldn't be called faith. Stating that a sceptic is operating on faith is misunderstanding the position especially when the burden of proof is on the claimant.
@@wobind72 Just for clarification, I didn't call you either a skeptic or an atheist, nor do I use the terms as synonyms. I just questioned why skeptics are assumed to never make decisions of faith and are always believed to have sufficiently researched the Bible and its message, while Christians are always assumed to make decisions based upon "blind" faith. More importantly, an atheist by definition is one that rejects the existence of God, whether they have thoroughly researched the issue or not. That is what the term means, one not believing in God. But an authentic "agnostic" is one that can't decide or is indifferent to the issue. And lastly, I don't believe the proposed definition of faith is accurate. Many people exercise faith and believe in God as he has revealed himself in the Bible based upon evidence they observe and have researched. For example, I see the world as having been an intelligently designed system, and as such it can only have been produced by a supreme intelligent being. That is evidence that aids me in making a decision of faith. Skeptics may reject this evidence as I have interpreted it, but it is still evidence, and solid evidence at that. The logical failure of modern skeptics is that they expect to disprove the existence of a supernatural God using merely natural means and skewed logic. And since their expectation or method is flawed, then they ultimately make a decision of faith to reject the Bible and the God that has revealed himself through it. Please note that I tried hard not to directly address you since I don't know you or what you believe. If I have failed, please excuse me. Blessings.
@@askabibleprof7099 Firstly, whatever position you are commenting from, thank you for your respectful and intelligent way of presenting your points and thoughts. It is nice to not be immediately judged and criticised merely for not agreeing. I only mentioned myself not being an atheist to express that I am not feverishly objecting to a God proposal rather than responding to a claim made by you. In all the atheists I know of personally, nobody has ever said to me that they believe or know that God doesn't exist. What I do hear much of is an exceptional claim requires an exceptional set of evidence. Christian folk often revert to a mix of the bible and personal revelation which I always find unconvincing. I have an old friend who is a minister and the last time we shared banter he said to me "I know that I know that I know that I know that I know that Jesus is real and my saviour". Personal revelation is not sufficient evidence. As I mentioned earlier, it appears that, especially a Christian, must hold some assumptions before the faith or the belief and I think you have pointed out another in your last comment. You subscribe to the watchmaker premise. Even using using word creation. You look out to the world and your first thought is that you are looking at a creation so, it is logical to then think with all this creation there must be a creator. I work daily with many members of the clergy and religious institution folk and I have heard ministers say to me "How can you look out to the world and not be in awe and wonder at how miraculously the entirety of existence is created?" The problem with that is the watchmaker metaphor that it relates to. If you are walking a beach and see an old analogue watch you can assume it's creation because nature doesn't build and assemble watches. But, you would also have evidence of understanding what a watch is, understanding that it comes about by creation, and by a watchmaker. It is sufficient to say this watch was made be somebody. You can't say that it is sufficient to say this earth had an earth creator because that is your assumption. Especially in the light of core science which shows how a planetary body is formed from a cloud of gas collapsing down due to gravity creating an invited star with the left over gasses swirling, cooling and collecting around the star to form planets. I know there are a subset of religious folk that deny science as well by saying the bible is as accurate a science book as they need and the earth is six thousand years old - but that is another debate to include those folk who believe the earth is flat. I hope I'm not rambling here. But yes, an atheist is someone who rejects God but they won't say I know that I know that I know God doesn't exist for the same way that they say I know the spaghetti monster of Jupiter doesn't exist. I must pull up in the idea you have of sceptics disprove the existence of a supreme being because it just can't be done and a modern sceptic who doesn't understand this (in my opinion) would need to re-enrol in sceptic school. But, even with all those points placed to one side, you are saying that after your evidence has been analysed by you, you return to the Christian God. Why do that? The lessons, morals, behaviours and actions of the God of the bible sometimes read like a horror story in which you must cherry pick the beautiful and hope none sees the horrific. Some of my Christian friends will offer to me "you aren't reading it right" "taken out of context", "don't question gods will", "jesus came to make the relationship better from God God the old testament" and many more. How do you reconcile all that?
@@wobind72 So, again just for clarification, I never said that skeptics have not critically considered or researched their positions, I was asserting that they seem to be given the benefit of the doubt while Christians never seem to be given the same benefit that their beliefs or conclusions are the result of critical investigations. I have heard the questions modern skeptics, and some present well argued positions, so again, I'm not suggesting that skeptics are not critical thinkers, I'm only asserting that Christians are never viewed in the same manner. With respect to the contents of the Bible, there is a difference between what is "prescribed" in it and what is merely "described." Observing this distinction is important for understanding it and its message. It would be nice if the Bible was merely communicating idealic suggestions of how things should be, but instead it communicates God's personal interaction with a messy world, one which humans have chosen to reject him and operate by their own decisions and desires, and as I have indicated, this has had catastrophic consequences. I can only commend to you some books for your consideration, such as C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, or Stoebel's A Case for Christ. I agree that just because one says they have had a personal subjective experience with God is not really a convincing or compelling evidence for others. That being said, it doesn't mean they haven't met and entered into a personal relationship with God, but only that they testimony may not convince others. However, a radically changed life can provide a compelling or attractive evidence that their profession may be accurate. Nonetheless, many a cult leaders and scam artists has made a similar profession, so I understand the hesitancy. My belief that God has revealed himself through the Bible is based upon the truth communicated in it, and the historic reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It would be nice to discuss this further, but if we do, then is should be a single point at a time. Lengthy interactions are prone to misunderstanding. And now I have to go to the dinner table. Thanks and blessings.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
![TEEDEE TADA - DIAMOND NARAKORN X LEGO LYKN [Special Dance Performance]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QgtZedFeumA/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent news: As of January 31, 2020, the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University is accredited by the Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools (ATS).
James, wow, what a difference a year makes. Just found this comment, I'm not sure why I missed it. Happy new year.
I studied the classics and Ancient Near Eastern religion and mythology (Greek, Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.) pretty extensively while getting my first degree in the 1980s. Now, in the seminary and studying the Bible, I can say with certainty that the Bible, its meanings, messages, implications, ramifications, theologies, and the recounting of the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ is “as far as the East is from the West” from the aforementioned. People say to me, “There are no first hand accounts of Jesus!” Yes, and there are no first accounts Alexander the Great...and he conquered most of Asia. People tend to be dismissive of subjects without bothering to study them. Many modern colleges and universities have devolved into crucibles of bizarre liberal theologies, progressivism, post-modernism, and self-serving new age spiritual modalities...it all just makes me double-down in my trust and faith in Christ. It’s not always an easy path...but it’s the only path for me. I don’t seek what is easy...I seek what Is right.
Well said. As someone who has actually looked at the facts, I think you would appreciate Walton's book on the subject.
You are not being truthfully. The bible is more than similar to pagan religions. It comes directly from them.
@@tamerajordan6858 Tamera, I regret that I just found your reply just now, if I had seen it I would have responded sooner. I respectful disagree, and my disagreement is based upon years of research and simple observation. the Bible, and more specifically, the OT does not originate from pagan religions, and the interview provides a rational discussion from an accomplished scholar explaining why they don't. They are substantively different in both worldview and perspective. It is these substantial differences that secular scholarship uncritically ignores. However, I appreciate that you took time to view the video. I highly recommend the you consider reading Dr. Oswalt's book. As to being truthful, with all my heart that is our intent. Blessings.
It seems to me however that a Christian must make certain assumptions and leaps of faith about the Bible PRIOR to study. For many, that is unacceptable.
That is an interesting perspective. But how is it that skeptics are given the benefit of the doubt that their positions come after a rigorous investigation of the Bible, but only Christians can make conclusions before a rigorous study of the Bible, one that is solely made from a decision of faith? Cannot someone make a disciplined investigation of the Bible, and then come to a conclusion to accept it and its message by faith? Moreover, isn't the assertion that there is no God or that the God of the Bible does not exist ultimately also a faith based decision?
@@askabibleprof7099 thanks for the reply, but I think a couple of points you have are not accurate. Firstly - I don't consider myself an atheist but I won't elaborate more on that here unless relevant. A sceptic is not given the benefit of any doubt, because they are a sceptic. A sceptic, or an atheist, is not making the claim that God does not exist. They can't do that. What they can say is that either 1. There isn't a sufficiently good argument proposed to accept that or 2. They have done a rigorous study of the bible and the bible comes up lacking. There is horror, judgement and great concern in the bible which many Christian folk deny of, or offer very little explanation of. So, the sceptic says after study of the bible I do not accept the premise, therefore I don't believe. Faith by definition is continuing to hold a belief without the evidence to do so. If it wasn't it wouldn't be called faith. Stating that a sceptic is operating on faith is misunderstanding the position especially when the burden of proof is on the claimant.
@@wobind72 Just for clarification, I didn't call you either a skeptic or an atheist, nor do I use the terms as synonyms. I just questioned why skeptics are assumed to never make decisions of faith and are always believed to have sufficiently researched the Bible and its message, while Christians are always assumed to make decisions based upon "blind" faith. More importantly, an atheist by definition is one that rejects the existence of God, whether they have thoroughly researched the issue or not. That is what the term means, one not believing in God. But an authentic "agnostic" is one that can't decide or is indifferent to the issue. And lastly, I don't believe the proposed definition of faith is accurate. Many people exercise faith and believe in God as he has revealed himself in the Bible based upon evidence they observe and have researched. For example, I see the world as having been an intelligently designed system, and as such it can only have been produced by a supreme intelligent being. That is evidence that aids me in making a decision of faith. Skeptics may reject this evidence as I have interpreted it, but it is still evidence, and solid evidence at that. The logical failure of modern skeptics is that they expect to disprove the existence of a supernatural God using merely natural means and skewed logic. And since their expectation or method is flawed, then they ultimately make a decision of faith to reject the Bible and the God that has revealed himself through it. Please note that I tried hard not to directly address you since I don't know you or what you believe. If I have failed, please excuse me. Blessings.
@@askabibleprof7099 Firstly, whatever position you are commenting from, thank you for your respectful and intelligent way of presenting your points and thoughts. It is nice to not be immediately judged and criticised merely for not agreeing. I only mentioned myself not being an atheist to express that I am not feverishly objecting to a God proposal rather than responding to a claim made by you. In all the atheists I know of personally, nobody has ever said to me that they believe or know that God doesn't exist. What I do hear much of is an exceptional claim requires an exceptional set of evidence. Christian folk often revert to a mix of the bible and personal revelation which I always find unconvincing. I have an old friend who is a minister and the last time we shared banter he said to me "I know that I know that I know that I know that I know that Jesus is real and my saviour". Personal revelation is not sufficient evidence. As I mentioned earlier, it appears that, especially a Christian, must hold some assumptions before the faith or the belief and I think you have pointed out another in your last comment. You subscribe to the watchmaker premise. Even using using word creation. You look out to the world and your first thought is that you are looking at a creation so, it is logical to then think with all this creation there must be a creator. I work daily with many members of the clergy and religious institution folk and I have heard ministers say to me "How can you look out to the world and not be in awe and wonder at how miraculously the entirety of existence is created?" The problem with that is the watchmaker metaphor that it relates to. If you are walking a beach and see an old analogue watch you can assume it's creation because nature doesn't build and assemble watches. But, you would also have evidence of understanding what a watch is, understanding that it comes about by creation, and by a watchmaker. It is sufficient to say this watch was made be somebody. You can't say that it is sufficient to say this earth had an earth creator because that is your assumption. Especially in the light of core science which shows how a planetary body is formed from a cloud of gas collapsing down due to gravity creating an invited star with the left over gasses swirling, cooling and collecting around the star to form planets. I know there are a subset of religious folk that deny science as well by saying the bible is as accurate a science book as they need and the earth is six thousand years old - but that is another debate to include those folk who believe the earth is flat. I hope I'm not rambling here. But yes, an atheist is someone who rejects God but they won't say I know that I know that I know God doesn't exist for the same way that they say I know the spaghetti monster of Jupiter doesn't exist. I must pull up in the idea you have of sceptics disprove the existence of a supreme being because it just can't be done and a modern sceptic who doesn't understand this (in my opinion) would need to re-enrol in sceptic school.
But, even with all those points placed to one side, you are saying that after your evidence has been analysed by you, you return to the Christian God. Why do that? The lessons, morals, behaviours and actions of the God of the bible sometimes read like a horror story in which you must cherry pick the beautiful and hope none sees the horrific. Some of my Christian friends will offer to me "you aren't reading it right" "taken out of context", "don't question gods will", "jesus came to make the relationship better from God God the old testament" and many more. How do you reconcile all that?
@@wobind72 So, again just for clarification, I never said that skeptics have not critically considered or researched their positions, I was asserting that they seem to be given the benefit of the doubt while Christians never seem to be given the same benefit that their beliefs or conclusions are the result of critical investigations. I have heard the questions modern skeptics, and some present well argued positions, so again, I'm not suggesting that skeptics are not critical thinkers, I'm only asserting that Christians are never viewed in the same manner. With respect to the contents of the Bible, there is a difference between what is "prescribed" in it and what is merely "described." Observing this distinction is important for understanding it and its message. It would be nice if the Bible was merely communicating idealic suggestions of how things should be, but instead it communicates God's personal interaction with a messy world, one which humans have chosen to reject him and operate by their own decisions and desires, and as I have indicated, this has had catastrophic consequences. I can only commend to you some books for your consideration, such as C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, or Stoebel's A Case for Christ. I agree that just because one says they have had a personal subjective experience with God is not really a convincing or compelling evidence for others. That being said, it doesn't mean they haven't met and entered into a personal relationship with God, but only that they testimony may not convince others. However, a radically changed life can provide a compelling or attractive evidence that their profession may be accurate. Nonetheless, many a cult leaders and scam artists has made a similar profession, so I understand the hesitancy. My belief that God has revealed himself through the Bible is based upon the truth communicated in it, and the historic reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It would be nice to discuss this further, but if we do, then is should be a single point at a time. Lengthy interactions are prone to misunderstanding. And now I have to go to the dinner table. Thanks and blessings.