The supergenious that marks scripture

[tretothee350z]

The greatest evidence, for me at least, that the bible is inspired by the one true God is the profound unified theme that marks the scriptures.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books. It was written by different authors, in different places, on different continents, over a 1600 year period. In light of all these things, there is an impossibility that each and every book which has come to be called "the canon", would be so unified in theme, teaching, and structure. And further the Predictive prophecy clearly made in advance of its unquestioned fulfillment. The logical argument is as follows:

1. If the content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production, then the content of the
Bible is of divine origin.

2. The content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production.

3. Therefore the content of the Bible is of divine origin.

Even skeptics have admitted the uniqueness of the biblical message. Rousseau, the prominent eighteenth century thinker to whom such philosophers as Kant and Hegel acknowledged their debt said: "I will confess to you farther that the majesty of the Scriptures strikes me with admiration, as the purity of the Gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of our philosophers, with all their pomp of diction, how mean, how contemptible are they, compared with the Scriptures! Is it possible that a book, at once so simple and sublime, should be merely the work of man?"

The great simplicity associated with a length, and breadth, and depth of the
meaning in scripture far transcends the range and capacity of the most inspired genius.

If one is going to read the bible properly, he should look for foreshadows of Christ in every line of the old testament. The animals slain to cover the nakedness of our parents: That was Christ, slain to cover our shame and guilt. Moses, leading the Israelite people out of slavery to the Egyptian people: That was Christ leading his people out of slavery and bondage to s sin, and this fallen world. Abraham, ready to Sacrifice his Son Isaac on Mt. Horeb (the same mountain that Christ was crucified on), when God caused a lamb to get caught in the thicket as a substitute, that was Christ.

The extent to these foreshadows of the messiah are by no means exhaustive. hundreds, and hundreds mark the pages of biblical text, each story revealing something about the savior to come when read between the lines. This is not a farfetched position as even Jesus himself spoke in parables, and figurative language. The parables were told to reflect a higher spiritual reality deeper than the parables themselves. And for those with "eyes to see" it was revealed that the King in Jesus parables was actually Jesus himself.

The backdrop of scripture also has a common theme. It can be summarized depending on which theological point you wish to emphasize, but an example is as follows: The whole of redemptive history can be summarized as the Father seeking a bride for His son, separated into four stages... Creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.

In conclusion, it is this unity that makes scripture beyond human ability to improvise. The attempt of theology is to understand this unity, and what it is saying. It is a phenomenon on the Bible that is absolutely unique among the scriptures of the major world religions. I am referring to the amazing way that the Old Testament predicts and foreshadows the coming of the Messiah and how these predictions are fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. And this is what gives scripture its defense when properly understood. Jonathan Edwards called it the ineffable, distinguishing, evidential excellency in the Bible. Call it an objective divine glory in the Bible, but Gods fingerprint (as it were) truly is shown to us in the unified theme which points to the Christ, Gods Son, and when this reality is seen, the Bibles message is self authenticating. It needs no outside defense.

[Morphine]

The only part of your argument that holds any weight is that the books were written by different people in different regions over a long period of time. But even then, we know that many other societies had similar stories that are in the bible, but have completely different beliefs. Which means whoever collected all the books into one, could have easily decided to randomly take bits and pieces out of each story and edit them just a bit to match up to each other.

Or maybe the writers of different times had previously read parts or some of the other books before writing their own. Also, the ones distributing this books could have easily been corrupt and did some editing.

And even if all those ideas I just said were wrong, that doesn't prove a god had anything to do with it. Could have been time travelers, psychics, or aliens with advance technology or hey... Maybe even your God. But how do you know? All this religious stuff could have just been some elaborate ploy to profit and/or control the masses.

[Strider324]

This 'profound unified theme' you see is not even remotely apparent to me. Bible God loves his Creation - but drowns them like kittens in a toilet - in an apparent fit of petulant, childish rage...even though he is a god 'for whom not a sparrow could fall without his anxious concern'.

He is all-powerful and thus assumed to be the Greatest Designer in the universe, but designs this horribly dysfunctional entity. 'Thou shalt not kill' is arguably his most clear and vital commandment, and yet he commands the genocide of millions, to include infants. The OT clearly describes the coming of a Messiah/Leader, yet the NT perverts it into this hellenistic Savior/Redeemer construct that has nothing to do with the Jewish Messiah.

This 'predictive prophecy' has been debunked for centuries now. Jesus was never called Immanuel, a Nazarite has absolutely nothing to do with a town called Nazareth - which has been shown to not have even existed at the time of Jesus - the 'virgin birth' prophesy has been exposed as a translation scam....

You may be 'exhausted' by this so-called 'united simplicity', but I for one am equally exhausted by the almost uncountable number of redactions, interpolations, contradictions and outright frauds found in this literary work.

Your argument appears to be unsupported.

[tretothee350z]

The only part of your argument that holds any weight is that the books were written by different people in different regions over a long period of time. But even then, we know that many other societies had similar stories that are in the bible, but have completely different beliefs. Which means whoever collected all the books into one, could have easily decided to randomly take bits and pieces out of each story and edit them just a bit to match up to each other.

No we do not know this. show me the biblical similarities that we see in other cultures.

Or maybe the writers of different times had previously read parts or some of the other books before writing their own. Also, the ones distributing this books could have easily been corrupt and did some editing.

The idea of my argument is that the Old testament refers to Christ, and it predates Christ. Even though the gospel writers did in fact have access to the old testament through the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint, it would have been impossible for them to manipulate the prophetic fulfillment that tied to Christs birth, and Death. Having said that, the Gospel story never would made it out of Jerusalem, (let alone Rome, and into every Nation of the world) unless it had collaborated with the eyewitness accounts, because the claims would have been seen for what they were, a farce.

And even if all those ideas I just said were wrong, that doesn't prove a god had anything to do with it. Could have been time travelers, psychics, or aliens with advance technology or hey... Maybe even your God. But how do you know? All this religious stuff could have just been some elaborate ploy to profit and/or control the masses.

You're being arbitrary and ambiguous.

[blueandwhite1789]

1. If the content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production, then the content of the
Bible is of divine origin.

2. The content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production.

3. Therefore the content of the Bible is of divine origin.

Both 1 and 2 are wrong.

1) Why must it be devine origin? If its "out of the realm of human capability" then it could be one of a million things.

2) Humans put a man on the moon, I'm pretty sure we are capable of writing 66 books with some kind of common theme. And even that notion I think is absurd. The book of revelation had to fix a fair amount of "storyline" screw ups by the previous books (such as the connection between the serpent, satans, and the devil)

[tretothee350z]

This 'profound unified theme' you see is not even remotely apparent to me. Bible God loves his Creation - but drowns them like kittens in a toilet - in an apparent fit of petulant, childish rage...even though he is a god 'for whom not a sparrow could fall without his anxious concern'.

According to scripture God has a particular set of attributes that are his character.
He has chosen to manifest His own glory glory in, by, and upon them (Westminster confession of Faith). Not standing in need of any creatures which he has made nor deriving any glory from them. He is all sufficient.

God is just, he displays this attribute in sinners. God is holy. He must satisfy his justice, when injustice is committed against Him. But God is also love. Now the greatest problem in all of scripture is how can a loving just God pardon the sinner and still remain just. Thats the gospel, so Christ comes down walks on his earth and lives a life absolutely perfect, he goes to the cross, and on the cross the father pours out all of his divine wrath on the Son satisfying His wrath and justice against sinners. And the perfect life that Christ can be imputed to us by faith in his perfect work. Thats the gospel.

In Gods glorifying himself he glorifies us, because the most valuable beautiful thing in the universe is God himself, and he must uphold that value, but he offers that value to us in the person of Jesus Christ. So yes, he punishes sinners, but he also redeems them for to experience Gods beauty and have Eternal everlasting joy.

Yes, it is the claim of the Bible, that God displays his wrath in sinners, but arguing from a presuppositional position, who are you to argue against Gods character. You may compare him to a Hitler or a Stalin, but even the foundation from which you reason is flawed. God cannot be compared to his creatures, part of what it means to be holy is 'completely set apart, and distinct.' Thats why he said to Moses, "I am who I am". Because he cannot say "I am like him"

He is all-powerful and thus assumed to be the Greatest Designer in the universe, but designs this horribly dysfunctional entity. 'Thou shalt not kill' is arguably his most clear and vital commandment, and yet he commands the genocide of millions, to include infants.

The correct rendition of Deuteronomy 5:17 is "‘You shall not murder" which means "unjust killing"

The purpose of the eradication of the Canaanites was not a vendetta, its was for the purpose of displaying Gods justice, the same God who commands unjust killing as a sin against himself, because it contradicts his character, and we were created in the image of God to display Gods character.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughte ... canaanites

The OT clearly describes the coming of a Messiah/Leader, yet the NT perverts it into this hellenistic Savior/Redeemer construct that has nothing to do with the Jewish Messiah.

Neither the whole of Christian theology, and church (in its teachings) is hellenistic, and the Old testament constantly emphasizes our fallen state in need of redemption.

This 'predictive prophecy' has been debunked for centuries now. Jesus was never called Immanuel

Emanuel means: God with us from Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2 pertains to Him being the Messiah, God in the flesh...it is a title more than a name Jesus means Savior the promised Christ the Anointed One from the Hebrew. He did not want to be identified in the political sense.

a Nazarite has absolutely nothing to do with a town called Nazareth - which has been shown to not have even existed at the time of Jesus -

Jesus was a Nazarene (from Nazareth), not a Nazarite.

the 'virgin birth' prophesy has been exposed as a translation scam....

This is simply not true: http://carm.org/isaiah-7-14-virgin

[Morphine]

The only part of your argument that holds any weight is that the books were written by different people in different regions over a long period of time. But even then, we know that many other societies had similar stories that are in the bible, but have completely different beliefs. Which means whoever collected all the books into one, could have easily decided to randomly take bits and pieces out of each story and edit them just a bit to match up to each other.

No we do not know this. show me the biblical similarities that we see in other cultures.

Or maybe the writers of different times had previously read parts or some of the other books before writing their own. Also, the ones distributing this books could have easily been corrupt and did some editing.

The idea of my argument is that the Old testament refers to Christ, and it predates Christ. Even though the gospel writers did in fact have access to the old testament through the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint, it would have been impossible for them to manipulate the prophetic fulfillment that tied to Christs birth, and Death. Having said that, the Gospel story never would made it out of Jerusalem, (let alone Rome, and into every Nation of the world) unless it had collaborated with the eyewitness accounts, because the claims would have been seen for what they were, a farce.

And even if all those ideas I just said were wrong, that doesn't prove a god had anything to do with it. Could have been time travelers, psychics, or aliens with advance technology or hey... Maybe even your God. But how do you know? All this religious stuff could have just been some elaborate ploy to profit and/or control the masses.

You're being arbitrary and ambiguous.

I should have said in previous cultures and mythologies which people use to believe in. Here is one source for the comparison to Greek mythology:
http://veronafair.hubpages.com/hub/the- ... -mythology

Another one with Mithraism:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

I feel that's enough to get my point across on that matter. I'm sure you can easily find more.

And you say I'm being arbitrary and ambiguous. How? I was being serious. And it shows that you favor your God over any other possibly. Because honestly, all of the ideas are equally absurd.

You also claim that the gospels would have never made it out of Jerusalem without the eye witness accounts. And yet we know of beings such as Zeus, Ares, Ra, and Anubis? Are you saying that there were eye witness accounts of those gods and they were telling the truth? Because people did actually believe that stuff for years. You can argue and say that they may have been mistaken, delusional or simply lying, but then you would have to also apply those possibilities to your own information.

Also, Jesus's birth did not fulfill the prophecy. He was to be born from the lineage of King David, whom Joseph, Mary's husband, was related to. You can claim that Mary is related to King David. But no where in the bible does it state such a thing. And we all know that Joseph and Jesus are not blood related.

[tretothee350z]

I should have said in previous cultures and mythologies which people use to believe in.

Here is one source for the comparison to Greek mythology:
http://veronafair.hubpages.com/hub/the- ... -mythology

Another one with Mithraism:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

I feel that's enough to get my point across on that matter. I'm sure you can easily find more.

This seems to be along the same line as the liberals on the History Channel saying that most of what is in the bible is copied from the surrounding countries, creation stories, flood stories etc. but why could it not have been that if they all descended from Noah after the flood they would have been taught these things and over the years the truth was lost because when separated from God the truth became fuzzy. They do not represent the righteous branch that God is preserving. They stole these stories from the Bible itself. The Lord taught his ways to Adam and His people who passed them on to there children. Noah brought these truths to the post flood world and his decedents spread these truths throughout the world, even though these developing cultures apostatized they held to the teachings of there ancestors. At least this is the way I have always seen it. I mean, look at how well Abraham was known, and his interactions with the kings of the earth. These apparent parallels were things that were known to all but have been distorted. They share a commonality because they share that similar source but they are copies or distortions of God's truth not the other way around.

But seriously, the order of recording is in question so they assume the position contra Scripture. Why is this?

One of the axioms that I live by is - "There is no religious thought or idea that was not copied from the Bible first." I have used this when people try to compare the old religious practices and say that Moses copied from them and blended them into his Bible that he wrote. (Well, that's how they say it) I'm sure the same would apply to the legal stuff too. For example: The Middle Assyrian laws (c. 1100 B.C.), The Hittite laws (c. 1500 B.C.), The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1700 B.C.), The Code of Lipit-Ishtar, The Code of Lipit-Ishtar (c. 1930 B.C.), The Code of Eshnunna (c. 1980 B.C.), The Code of Ur-nammu (c. 2050 B.C.), all legal codes from the Ancient near east, all share similarities when compared with the law of Moses.

There are indeed certain similarities of Greek mythology when compared with the Old testament, but as I suggested before, this is only to be expected. For instance in the flood of Noah, it is only reasonable that all the cultures of the earth would contain a flood story, if it were in fact a global flood, and that we do, as the story would have been passed down from Noah as the earth repopulated. So not surprisingly the story of the flood is by no means exclusive Greek mythology. to Many of the supposed parallels the websites you listed mention simply arent convincing. They do bare a vague appearance of biblical figures and events on some occasion, but nothing striking. and besides, there is a fine line between the spiritual principles, and philosophy emphasized in the Bible, and any other religious texts. At a superficial glance certain things may appear similar, but when properly understood, the meaning is always different, because the philosophy of the Bible is a phenomenon all its own. Christianity is the only religion of the world that works by grace. All of the other religions of the world are tied to self accomplishment. Having said all that, unless the very foundation of Christian theology (Christ) is attacked, the similarities pose no threat, because a copy cat of Jesus Christ that predates Christ, shows that his life is nothing more than a rewrite from ancient myth. This was attempted in the Zeitgeist claims, but basically long story short, the claims have no ugaritic text nor manuscript etc to back the claims, no serious scholar takes hold to these views, Wikipedia even has a section for bashing it. The guy who made this claim used a few uneducated ridiculous sources for his claims.

All About Horus: An Egyptian Copy of Christ? Response to Zeitgeist movie

Osiris. Horus. Jesus. Not Triplets!

Was the life of Jesus copied from Horus

And you say I'm being arbitrary and ambiguous. How? I was being serious. And it shows that you favor your God over any other possibly. Because honestly, all of the ideas are equally absurd.

What I am saying is that you're taking conjecture, and you're putting it in the place of research.

You also claim that the gospels would have never made it out of Jerusalem without the eye witness accounts. And yet we know of beings such as Zeus, Ares, Ra, and Anubis? Are you saying that there were eye witness accounts of those gods and they were telling the truth? Because people did actually believe that stuff for years. You can argue and say that they may have been mistaken, delusional or simply lying, but then you would have to also apply those possibilities to your own information.

Because the intention of the apostles was meant to portray actual events within the greco-Roman empire that they witnessed firsthand. The historical account of Jesus, and his divinity. If they meant it as myth, that means they were not meaning it literally.

Also, Jesus's birth did not fulfill the prophecy. He was to be born from the lineage of King David, whom Joseph, Mary's husband, was related to. You can claim that Mary is related to King David. But no where in the bible does it state such a thing. And we all know that Joseph and Jesus are not blood related.

The answer to this as I was told is that is why we have Luke's genealogy. Luke 3:31 in Mary's line is through Nathan, which was the son of David.

So Jesus is still is able to sit on the throne of David.

[Goat]

The greatest evidence, for me at least, that the bible is inspired by the one true God is the profound unified theme that marks the scriptures.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books. It was written by different authors, in different places, on different continents, over a 1600 year period. In light of all these things, there is an impossibility that each and every book which has come to be called "the canon", would be so unified in theme, teaching, and structure. And further the Predictive prophecy clearly made in advance of its unquestioned fulfillment. The logical argument is as follows:

Well, we gots a problem right here. The protests have the 66 books, the Catholics have a few more. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the 'Narrow Canon' of the books the Catholics have', and then a 'wider Canon' of another set bringing it up to about 80.

1. If the content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production, then the content of the
Bible is of divine origin.

Why?? It also could have been extensively edited.. and 'undesirable' books rejected.. Or you could be underestimating the ability of man. Just other possiblies.. or another one.. you can be making judgements that just aren't true.

2. The content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production.

Care to prove this?? Can you show this to be true??

3. Therefore the content of the Bible is of divine origin.

Sorry, but your first two assumptions are way way off.. and therefore corrupts your conclusion.

Even skeptics have admitted the uniqueness of the biblical message. Rousseau, the prominent eighteenth century thinker to whom such philosophers as Kant and Hegel acknowledged their debt said: "I will confess to you farther that the majesty of the Scriptures strikes me with admiration, as the purity of the Gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of our philosophers, with all their pomp of diction, how mean, how contemptible are they, compared with the Scriptures! Is it possible that a book, at once so simple and sublime, should be merely the work of man?"

Does 'uniqueness' mean right?? The Koran is unique too.. So what?



The great simplicity associated with a length, and breadth, and depth of the
meaning in scripture far transcends the range and capacity of the most inspired genius.

If one is going to read the bible properly, he should look for foreshadows of Christ in every line of the old testament. The animals slain to cover the nakedness of our parents: That was Christ, slain to cover our shame and guilt. Moses, leading the Israelite people out of slavery to the Egyptian people: That was Christ leading his people out of slavery and bondage to s sin, and this fallen world. Abraham, ready to Sacrifice his Son Isaac on Mt. Horeb (the same mountain that Christ was crucified on), when God caused a lamb to get caught in the thicket as a substitute, that was Christ.

The extent to these foreshadows of the messiah are by no means exhaustive. hundreds, and hundreds mark the pages of biblical text, each story revealing something about the savior to come when read between the lines. This is not a farfetched position as even Jesus himself spoke in parables, and figurative language. The parables were told to reflect a higher spiritual reality deeper than the parables themselves. And for those with "eyes to see" it was revealed that the King in Jesus parables was actually Jesus himself.

The backdrop of scripture also has a common theme. It can be summarized depending on which theological point you wish to emphasize, but an example is as follows: The whole of redemptive history can be summarized as the Father seeking a bride for His son, separated into four stages... Creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.

In conclusion, it is this unity that makes scripture beyond human ability to improvise. The attempt of theology is to understand this unity, and what it is saying. It is a phenomenon on the Bible that is absolutely unique among the scriptures of the major world religions. I am referring to the amazing way that the Old Testament predicts and foreshadows the coming of the Messiah and how these predictions are fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. And this is what gives scripture its defense when properly understood. Jonathan Edwards called it the ineffable, distinguishing, evidential excellency in the Bible. Call it an objective divine glory in the Bible, but Gods fingerprint (as it were) truly is shown to us in the unified theme which points to the Christ, Gods Son, and when this reality is seen, the Bibles message is self authenticating. It needs no outside defense.[/quote]

Do you actually have a topic to debate, or are you just making a bunch of unsupported claims in the form of a sermon?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The greatest evidence, for me at least, that the bible is inspired by the one true God is the profound unified theme that marks the scriptures.

I 'preciate your willingness to present your evidence right off the bat, but I disagree with your conclusion. Any great tale will have some form of "unified theme", even if we have to find it ourselves.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books. It was written by different authors, in different places, on different continents, over a 1600 year period.

If I can continue my collection of Playboy magazines for the next 1600 years, will that mean Hugh Hefner is God?

In light of all these things, there is an impossibility that each and every book which has come to be called "the canon", would be so unified in theme, teaching, and structure.

Do you discount the possibility that these books may have been "cross-referenced" to each other? If so, why?

And further the Predictive prophecy clearly made in advance of its unquestioned fulfillment.

I see no prophecy in a book put together after the fact.

1. If the content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production, then the content of the
Bible is of divine origin.

Why must your conclusion follow from its premise? What is meant by "inexhuastibility"?

2. The content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production.

Yet it relies on humans to even be printed.

3. Therefore the content of the Bible is of divine origin.

Your conclusion doesn't seem to rely on the premises you present.

Even skeptics have admitted the uniqueness of the biblical message.

Argumentum ad populum.

Rousseau, the prominent eighteenth century thinker to whom such philosophers as Kant and Hegel acknowledged their debt said: "I will confess to you farther that the majesty of the Scriptures strikes me with admiration, as the purity of the Gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of our philosophers, with all their pomp of diction, how mean, how contemptible are they, compared with the Scriptures! Is it possible that a book, at once so simple and sublime, should be merely the work of man?"

I see nothing in the above remarks that leads me to conclude Rousseau thought this book unique beyond it being merely another book - albeit a fancy'n.

The great simplicity associated with a length, and breadth, and depth of the meaning in scripture far transcends the range and capacity of the most inspired genius.

Such a statement indicates to me one who has little imagination.

If one is going to read the bible properly, he should look for foreshadows of Christ in every line of the old testament. The animals slain to cover the nakedness of our parents: That was Christ, slain to cover our shame and guilt. Moses, leading the Israelite people out of slavery to the Egyptian people: That was Christ leading his people out of slavery and bondage to s sin, and this fallen world. Abraham, ready to Sacrifice his Son Isaac on Mt. Horeb (the same mountain that Christ was crucified on), when God caused a lamb to get caught in the thicket as a substitute, that was Christ.

While I can dig your notion here, all I see is an attempt to insert a Christ into previous passages, with the only warrant being a desire to do so.

The extent to these foreshadows of the messiah are by no means exhaustive. hundreds, and hundreds mark the pages of biblical text, each story revealing something about the savior to come when read between the lines. This is not a farfetched position as even Jesus himself spoke in parables, and figurative language. The parables were told to reflect a higher spiritual reality deeper than the parables themselves. And for those with "eyes to see" it was revealed that the King in Jesus parables was actually Jesus himself.

I s'pose one man's "read between the lines" is another's "insert your own belief here".

The backdrop of scripture also has a common theme. It can be summarized depending on which theological point you wish to emphasize...

It's got a "common theme", and don't ya know, you get to decide what that theme is. Such is, if only to me, hardly indicative of a "common" theme.

but an example is as follows: The whole of redemptive history can be summarized as the Father seeking a bride for His son, separated into four stages... Creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.

I can dig it, while I see little reason to think a God exists to "carry" such a story.

In conclusion, it is this unity that makes scripture beyond human ability to improvise.

Such a statement indicates to me one who lacks an ability to do some improvizin' of his own. Yours is an argument from incredulity, AKA argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The attempt of theology is to understand this unity, and what it is saying. It is a phenomenon on the Bible that is absolutely unique among the scriptures of the major world religions.

When one declares something to hold a "common theme" that we then all get to decide what theme is so common about it, I propose calling it "unique" is stretching it a bit.

I am referring to the amazing way that the Old Testament predicts and foreshadows the coming of the Messiah and how these predictions are fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth.

You ain't talked to the Jews about that'n, have ya?

And this is what gives scripture its defense when properly understood.

Fair nuff I s'pose, as I question your ability to do any of that "properly understooding".

Jonathan Edwards called it the ineffable, distinguishing, evidential excellency in the Bible. Call it an objective divine glory in the Bible, but Gods fingerprint (as it were) truly is shown to us in the unified theme which points to the Christ, Gods Son...

Argument from authority. The very words used to describe the Bible you present are subjective determinations, and should be considered as an expression of one's incredulity.

and when this reality is seen, the Bibles message is self authenticating. It needs no outside defense.

Yet here you are, defending it to beat the band.

You've got yourself one whopper of an argument from incredulity is, I contend, what should be most evident here.