Trick question. And not a good one. Using this logic, we should still be living in huts because building engineers weren't around 100 years ago to witness the flaws in the buildings back then.
Yet the buildings were improved (to some higher level of trust) over the years, and those improvements were made (as you pointed out without the aid of engineers who were not present).... just tells me that you don't have to be an engineer to make improvements or to overcome 'flaws in the buildings'.
Yes as human knowledge is built upon each and ever generation. That is why BFSmith@764's question is a trick question. One doesn't need to see everything to believe in it. This is of course here is verifiable evidence to support it.
I don't see a trick question, but I see a flaw in your logic regarding the absence of engineers and the fact that improvements were made despite the absence of engineers. Just answer his question.
I am simply turning back on you your logic. If hearsay means its unreliable then everything that you believe but you did not witness it yourself, but was passed on to you by others then that too is unreliable.
No, because if I really wanted to and had the means, I could test theories myself. Can't do that with 'faith'
rstones199 was implying that what John's account was unreliable because it was hearsay. So based on rstones199 reasoning everything thing that we have not seen with our own eyes is not reliable.....its heresay. His reasoning breaks down when put to the test because its based on assumption not on evidence.
I can tell you the same thing about the existence of God......I could show Him to you if I had the means.
It is hearsay. Who wrote the Gospel According to John? NO ONE knows because they are 'anonymous authors'. We know who wrote Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, because we have eye witnesses from the time stating he did. Where are the eyewitnesses for the book of john?
Where are the eye witnesses for Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and all the others who allegedly wrote things back then?
It's hearsay. There is no way of knowing whether it is true or not. Its always best to toss out hearsay.
So you have no way of knowing for sure if those people ever existed or a fabrication of someone's imagination?
so if you heard from Fred that John saw Tina and Tina said there is an astroid coming tomarrow to kill us all, that you would believe it? After all, you 'know' better.
What does that have to do with the book of John? If your goanna try to discredit that book you have to show me from the Bible where that book contradicts the rest of the books of the Bible. And yes, I know better.
The book of John and this: are BOTH hearsay. Did I really need to explain this? PS: You cannot discredit hearsay with more hearsay!
I would first ask John if John believed it. If John said yes that he believes it, then it would be the 'truth' to John and as many others that were willing to 'believe' what John had to say.
You’re still not proving that what's written in it is not true......all your doing is giving me your opinion. Show me one single contradiction that that book has against the rest of the Bible. Anybody can make claims as if just because they make a claim that means that what they say is true. So all you have done is state your opinion. But I don't live my life based on another person's opinion.
It does not matter if its true or not. It is HEARSAY. This is not an opinoin, this fact based on the defination of hearsay. As I stated before, you cannot contract hearsay with hearsay.
Well, my point is if you can't prove that its false then you might as well not say anything at all. I have complete and total confidence that the book of John was inspired by God, whether I know who wrote it or not. And thats the bottom-line.
if thats the truth then that follows but even if it was not the truth just believing it would have the same affect
I don't need to I know it is not. Because I have faith in God's ability to put all of His inspired word together and keep out all and anything that is false and preserve it for His people today.
