Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
Yet, how can you know that the Bible is true without "signs" (and I'm willing to be rather open ended about "signs)."
The Bible is a testimony of those who were declaring the Gospel in the first century (NT). If "signs" were needed in the first century to validate that testimony, would not "signs" be needed today to validate the exact same testimony from the exact same people?
|
They (signs and wonders) aren't doing a good job of proving the Bible. It's like Aaron's rod turning into a snake. Pharaoh's magicians did the same thing. Ah, but Aaron's snake ate them up, you say? Sure. Aaron was a better illusionist than they were. So? Maybe with some practice, they can get their snakes can start eating things, too.
Today, we have nifty signs and wonders like people standing up from wheelchairs, tongues, prophecies and words of knowledge, people falling down at the alter (wow!), etc. All of which can easily be duplicated by "Pharaoh's magicians" (such as Hindus and Mormons). Show me an amputee growing a new leg. That would be good, for starters. (But if a Hindu accomplishes something like that, some would say it's just the devil's counterfeit. Sigh.)
Threaded Mode
