@Ken: I’m not an atheist, never have been. How can …

Comment on Why the Bible? by Sean Pitman.

@Ken:

I’m not an atheist, never have been. How can one have that degree of certitude in light of the fact one the universe exists without an explanation for first cause. But I do not that all religions change as time moves forward.

As a very unusual non-standard “agnostic” who believes that the existence of God is “likely” (given theistic arguments from first cause), obviously you’re not an atheist. It seems that although you believe that the existence of some kind of God is likely (contrary to the very definition of an agnostic), you are unsure, or truly agnostic, with regard to the particular character or nature of this God.

While views of God do indeed change over time, history does not change. The Bible, as a very ancient historical narrative, has demonstrated itself to be extraordinarily stable and reliable over very long periods of time as a true account of historical events – even miraculous events. Given the demonstrated accuracy of the Bible regarding discoverable history, this should give one pause regarding the Bible’s claims as to the nature of God as well. That is my own position in any case.

For example, it appears there may be a reformation afoot regarding the amendment of FB # 6. Is this God’s work or Man’s work? How does one distinguish who is inspired by God vs. their own personal views? And ultimately who controls the levers of power ( who will appoint the committee and voting members at the GC) to vote upon any change?

“By their fruits you will know them.” – Matthew 7:20

It is one thing to demonstrate that a particular event or phenomenon requires superhuman creativity and/or power. It is another thing to demonstrate that this Power is Divine or ultimately Good – as one would expect from the Christian-style God.

God’s work may seem to stumble and fall for a time, but God’s work, as strikingly demonstrated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, is always ultimately successful.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Why the Bible?
@Ken:

I do think however that Science, not necessarily any one individual scientist not subject to correction, is the best objective tool for looking at Reality. And if Reality is the work of a Creator/God, perhaps the best tool for understaning the nature of same.

I agree, obviously, with this statement – with the caveat that “science” is not defined by what popular scientists generally believe at any given point in time or that science is somehow entirely objective or independent of the requirement to make “leaps of faith” to one degree or another…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Why the Bible?
@Hubert F. Sturges:

I don’t like the word “magic” to describe the supernatural acts of God. The supernatural is very different from magic. Such acts are always very practical and necessary to the situation at hand.

And Faith wrote:

I agree with Mr. Sturges. That word, as well as the word “fairytales”, has been bothering me ever since I first read the above article. I have been trying to figure out how to express my thoughts without hurtiing Sean’s feelings, but I believe it is important to differentiate between the “magic” that Satan and his agents practice and the miracles that God works.

I am well aware of and sympathize with these concerns and even considered them before I wrote this article. However, you must understand that I was writing from the perspective of someone approaching the Bible for the first time – before one becomes aware of its truly Divine origin. From this perspective, many of the stories would at first appear to be quite magical or like a fairytale indeed (in the best most innocent children-story sense of the words).

I know that there is a difference between the Satanic magical arts (and I’m not talking about illusionists or card tricks here) and truly Divine miracles. However, for the average person who is not aware of the distinction, who first starts considering the claims of the Bible, the miracles described in the Bible would appear, at first approximation, to be very similar to what is generally referred to as “magic” or to nothing more than made up fairytales for children. How then does one end up telling the difference? That’s the question I’m asking here.

In any case, please do consider the context and intended perspective of my argument, as well as my conclusion that there is a very clear and evident difference between the Bible and fairytales or moral fables as well as between the miracles or “magic” that Satan is able to produce. The Bible is so far beyond any of these as to be clearly Divine in origin for anyone who considers and researches it carefully and with an open candid mind.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Why the Bible?
@Bill Sorensen:

If science gives some credibility to scriptural declarations, it is well and good. But science can not and will not supercede the bibles testimony concerning itself and its validity and authority.

It is through science, or scientific/rational thought, that the credibility of the Bible’s claims concerning itself, to include it’s prophetic claims, can be determined. The credibility of Biblical prophecy is based on the historical sciences. If Biblical prophecy was shown, as is the case for many other books claiming to be prophetic, to be completely inaccurate or too vague to be statistically useful with regard to known historical science, the credibility of prophecy as a basis for determining the Divine origin of the Book would be undermined. The Biblical claim to be The Word of God would be effectively falsified.

It is for this reason that the “higher critics” of the Bible try valiantly to undermine the concept of Biblical prophecy, arguing that the most striking prophecies of the Bible, especially those written by Daniel, were actually written far far after the historical predictions prophesied. They do this from a humanistic mindset in order to challenge the Bible’s claim to Divine origin… in an effort to effectively falsify this claim.

The potential for effective Biblical falsification alone is what puts the Bible, and no other faith really, into the realm of science and/or rational thought. Christianity need not be based on blind faith because the Bible itself actually strives to appeal to the intelligent candid mind with regard to the credibility of its own claims to Divine origin. One does not need to turn off one’s higher God-given reasoning powers when approaching the Bible and it’s fantastic claim to be the Word of God.

Again, the Bible is not “self-validating” as nothing can validate itself without any reference to the external realities to which it speaks…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
If you understood how these vaccines actually work, you would understand that they are part of helping to preserve life and health – part of ending all the death and suffering that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is causing on this planet.

Not all science is bad. Most of the discoveries of science are actually good – especially when it can be tested and observed in real-time. True scientific knowledge and medical advancements are a gift of God to ease the pain of humanity in this fallen world…


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I don’t know when Novavax will be approved? Here’s the latest on their clinical trials: Link


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I don’t know what is happening in Orange County, but I do know that the vaccines have not been approved for anyone under 16-years-of-age. And certainly, any medical procedure done on a child or a minor should first be approved by the parents…

That being said, I would certainly have my own two boys (9 and 11) vaccinated as soon as the mRNA vaccine is available for children.

Again, the evidence is very very clear that the risks associated with the mRNA vaccines are far far outweighed by the risks associated with getting the actual live COVID-19 infection where up to 1/3 of children sustain long-term/permanent injuries – not to mention the risk of passing it on to others who may also be die or be permanently injured.


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
If that makes you more comfortable, that’s fine. However, when it comes to the mRNA vaccines, in particular, there really are no more remaining questions of any real seriousness to be answered. The technology has been around and studied for over 30 years now and the vaccine trials were a great success, demonstrating amazing efficacy as well as safety. The same has been true of the general rollout around the world. Those countries with the highest percentage of vaccinations are doing the best regarding a reduction in death rates and injuries from the COVID-19 virus. The longer you wait, the greater your personal risk and the risk to others around you.


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche

Can you talk about the blood clot side affect — the rash side affect — and the other side affects listed in the VAERS document? Are these deaths and suffering are just “ho-hum” dispensable humans to the cause of good for all?

I talk about VAERS here (Link). The Herpes Zoster rash happens in a low percentage of immunocompromised people who have previously been infected with the Herpes virus (Link). While certainly uncomfortable, it’s not life-threatening and it isn’t a risk for most people. The blood clot risk is a very rare risk (about 1 in a million for young women) for the DNA vaccines, possibly related to the adenoviral vector used for the vaccines. I talk about this here (Link). There is also a very rare risk for severe immune thrombocytopenia (Link). Note that for all of these risks for the vaccines, the very same risks are much much much higher when it comes to being infected by the live COVID-19 virus. So, if you want to reduce your risk as much as possible, the best way to do that is to get vaccinated.

What is happening to cause so many side affects? How is one to know if there is a chance of dangerous side affects of the vaccine for a person?

The thing about risk is that it is impossible to know, ahead of time, exactly how a particular person will react. That’s just the nature of the concept of “risk”…

Are vaccinated women who get the vaccine during pregnancy, or get pregnant and give birth having any side affects among their babies?

No. I talk about this rumor here (Link).

Also, have your children been vaccinated? What is your opinion of elementary or high schools requiring the vaccine for school children? Which childhood conditions need to be studied before administering the vaccine to children with these conditions?

The mRNA vaccines are not approved for children under the age of 16. They are currently in the trial phase of testing for younger children. My own boys are 9 and 11 years of age, so no, they haven’t been vaccinated yet. However, once approved, I would be getting them vaccinated since even children are at risk for long-term injury and sickness from COVID-19 (30% of children get Long-Hauler’s following even asymptomatic infections with COVID-19). As far as childhood “conditions”, I know of no common childhood conditions which would preclude vaccination…

What “empirical evidence” is there that mRNA vaccines do not cause any side affects “a year or two or three down the line”? Is there a study I can read – link?

As I’ve already mentioned, the evidence for this is the very long history that we’ve had with vaccines and understanding how they work with the human immune system. When complications arise, they do so within the first few months for large populations (Link). It is extremely unlikely that something brand new and unexpected will come to light years down the line (Link). Also, by that time, millions will have been killed and permanently injured by the very real and very well-known risks of the COVID-19 virus itself.

Yes, your glowing recommendation is convincing with several issues not addressed in the glow.

I have addressed most of your questions already in other posts on this topic…

Do you recommend a yearly booster vaccine like now is being developed? I think big Pharma announced a flu/covid combo vaccine coming out for next fall. What is your opinion please?

For now, it seems likely to me that the mRNA vaccines will produce immunity lasting more than a year, likely several years. However, as with most viruses, the COVID-19 virus mutates. If a new mutant strain comes along that “breaks through” the immunity provided by the original vaccine(s), then yes, a booster would be necessary. However, if enough people would get vaccinated quickly, it would make the odds of such breakthrough mutations less likely.

Thanks for your help in understanding the full spectrum of topics about these mRNA vaccines.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions.