Greg Koukl - What is faith?

[nickyjam770]

Faith is simply rejecting the 5 senses and accepting God's reality even though it is impossible for the 5 senses to accept....keep walking no matter what!!

[Tobytrim]

Trust?? Trust in what?? Unsupported hearsay tales of fantasy and magic? - However you cut it, it is blind faith that irrational mythical stories are true.. To call it "gullibility" would be even more accurate than to call it "trust"!

The author of John wrote bad propaganda - no more!

[ChipArgyle]

Well, this is interesting. A Christian is starting to see how ridiculous the concept of faith is, because without evidence, it IS blind. Thus, he's suggesting that Christians wordsmith it, put some spin on it, and change the term. I guess the good word isn't sticking so well anymore so they have to resort to marketing tactics.

And once again, a Christian slams Commandment 9 into the ground to advance his beliefs.

[TheLittleAssyrian]

@ChipArgyle

Are you currently reading the bible? Is it really fair for one to completely reject Biblical testimony if one is seeking to understand the natural world? To embrace the contrary would suggest an irrationality on the part of the Atheist.

[promisedgrace]

He is combining faith and belief, they are two different things. Faith comes from God to the person via the Rhema of Christ (Rom 10:17) we then choose to trust Him or deny Him, you see this clearly in this verse:

Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe...

Faith comes from God NOT from you, this has a subtle form of ignorance at best or at worst deception, but now you know the rest of the story.

[ImputedObedience]

Faith and love(works) are different things. Faith is simply "believing the testimony", "believing the promises", "hearing the [God's] voice behind you", "the conviction of things not seen". Faith IS intellectual acknowledgement.

[ImputedObedience]

Koukl says faith "isn't just an intellectual acknowledgement, it's an awareness of the truth of something and a willingness to act". He says faith is "active trust", not "intellectual acknowledgement". OK, so you and I have faith that Washington was the first president. Do we have to act on that faith? You and I believe that Russia exists. Do I have to go to Russia now in order to have real faith? No. Koukl has confused faith and acts/works. The Bible says there is faith, hope and love.

[Tobytrim]

What Greg fails to understand is that he isn't talking about evidence, is he? He's talking about faith in hearsay stories, related by unreliable sources, generations after the events, which are, themselves, too unlikely to have ever happened, even if there wasn't stong evidence againt their occurrance - Which, of course, there is!

This is blind faith to the point of imbicilic gullibility! - But feel free to call it "trust" if you wish! - Lol!!

[jordan19862000]

@Tobytrim Do you believe that Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and Ghangis Khan existed?

[Tobytrim]

"Trust"....."faith"......It all means the same - "Requiring of extraordinary gullibility" - when you are talking about accepting information, as fact, from self contradicting, fallacy ridden, Bronze Age text, written by and for more ignorant people than we are today. Which is a perfect description of Christianity and the other monotheistic religions which stem from these middle Eastern superstitions and myths.

[bashirbell10]

I have recently started to study faith. I want to understand my own profession better, deeper because of the need to see manifestation of Jesus power in my life, prayer life and spiritual needs being met. Pistis...i think is the greek word that was used, from my understand it deals with a deeper meaning of belief, which deals with a persistent commitment, even an alligence to something. I don't really know, but it seems to me, that corresponding actions are the fruit of the faith.

likd2cm

[frankydoodle123]

condios.mydealscenter.cm

[YBAdick]

Faith is trusting something you can't prove.... and in the case of God, trusting him when such horrible things are going on is not earning my trust...

enough said....

[nickallah]

he simply switched faith with trust. and you can still add "blind" and "leap of" to trust.

i like gullibility better than faith OR trust.

[Toggen62]

Whether it's trust or faith, if you really want to believe something that can't be proved true, how will you "know" that your conviction is not "blind"? What ever is written in holy books referring to eyewitnesses, the information is still based on ("blind") trust, conviction or faith, and up to you to believe it.

[bluegama500]

Faith is to follow blindly and not question. Because if you question, there is not answer.

[Jugglable]

@bluegama500 I think you should check out the wordonfirevideo channel and watch his response to Religulous. There is a great definition of faith in that video.

Faith is not credulity. Faith is belief in something that you cannot immediately verify. Faith is not putting your mind aside---you can glimpse God with your mind, but faith involves both the mind and heart.

[bluegama500]

@Jugglable Yes yes I've heard that shit before. Basically they don't want you to ask questions. Thanks I will check it out

[Jugglable]

@bluegama500 Don't want you to ask questions? I don't think you can read any two pages of Thomas Aquinas, or Leibniz, and not realize that these men spent their lives asking thousands upon thousands of the most difficult kinds of questions. I actually think it was asking questions, and refusing to stop asking, that led me to conclude God's existence, ultimately.

[bluegama500]

@Jugglable lol sure. Thats what they tell you. Yet go to a church or cristian family and ask questions. They will just be like "Don't question god! Where is your faith?"

I understand people having a religion and all, but at least allow them to ask questions.

Cut the crap. Faith means to follow blindly and no ask questions. Angry with what I'm saying? Then don't talk to me.

[Jugglable]

@bluegama500 If people have said that to you, I'm sorry, and I think it's too bad. Especially because a lot of the questions that religious people ask about God when they have doubts are ones that can be addressed pretty easily and can help you to grow in your faith.

People *should* be allowed to ask questions, and I think it's good.

I'm not angry with you, but it does seem as if you're angry with me. Why? Faith is not following blindly. I am a religious person and I do ask many questions.

[bluegama500]

"I am a religious person and I do ask many questions" Are your questions answered?

They get angry whenever you ask questions, because most of the time they don't have an answer. In my opinion Faith is something that was taught to people so they would be easier to manipulate. Kind of like how the military teaches you to do what your told at all times and not hesitate.

Religious people are just delusional imo.

[Jugglable]

@bluegama500 They are sometimes answered, yes, but other times I do not get the answers I want. I do not beleive we get all the answers we want in this lifetime.

Who gets angry when you ask questions? Maybe you grew up in the worst kind of fundamentalist environment. And you think faith is taught to people so they'll be easier to manipulate? That's not how religions originate. Take a look at atheist Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell."

[bluegama500]

@Jugglable Well that's what I think anyway. I don't believe in any religion.

I've seen people try and ask questions, they just go "Don't question God!", not just where I am, but everywhere.

Maybe inyour area its different, I don't know :P. Also, I just can't be bothered going to church every sunday if I was religious lol. I've only been to church twice in my live, and they were for my relatives baptisms. And they were the most boring moments of my whole life.

[Jugglable]

@bluegama500 I would very much recommend you take a look at the channel by wordonfire because it applies a Christian perspective to all sorts of modern-day things and makes Christianity interesting, relevant, exciting, and accessible. It has commentaries on Bob Dylan, The Matrix, the financial crisis, the BP Oil Spill, steroids in baseball, and so on. Check it out!

[bluegama500]

@Jugglable I'm not religious but ok I'll take a look.

[toptech777]

Good word... "Trust". It is the Trust in God that allows application for Faith. Well done. God Bless.

[x86freak]

A good explanation to those who misunderstand what Faith actually is.

Faith is Trust.

To a believer existence of God is not a issue.

It's all about how much he trusts God.

[jerelesli]

Well said mr. Koukl

[Terra7Q]

watch Zeitgeist

[dgault1087]

Zeitgiest doesnt tell you that Jesus was the first RECORDED ressurection, the other false gods resurrections were myths and were never recorded until after Jesus. There is no archeoligical evidence of any resurection story recorded until after Jesus Christ. Also dec 25th being the birthdate of jesus is just a traditional date, not the actual date they believe he was born on. But i do understand that since they dont tell you this it does appear as though Jesus' life events are fabricated.

[ThatsHot0621]

Turst. yes

[SuperAlexrios]

to have christian faith you have to intelectualized a fantasy in order to believe

[dtower76]

What do you mean by that?

[LowestOftheDead]

Um... but the Bible is not a factual record, it's mythology. No different than the Illiad or the Norse Sagas.  So your 'trust' is really just blind faith after all. Moral conventions should be judged by the extent to which they objectively contribute to human flourishing.

[bereantrb]

Mythology - how did you come to that conclusion?

[dtower76]

Why should moral conventions be judged that way? Who's understanding of "objectively" would you follow? (Hitler and his followers thought they were objective, too)

[Epydemic2020]

Excellent video. I was going to make a video on this exact concept and you put it quite well.

[hackenbollox]

He's talking through his jacksie. Faith is blind by definition.

[bereantrb]

Definition? You may want to pick up a dictionary. My dictionary has 9 definitions of faith. The first definition is trust. It's nothing mysterious. It's the same trust/faith you have when you step on a plane and trust that you will get to your destination. It's reasonable and not blind.

[hackenbollox]

Sorry, but it is blind. Check your dictionaries again, and note where it says 'especially without evidence or proof'.

[bereantrb]

As I noted, there are multiple definitions. You originally said, "blind by definition" implying that's the only definition. But the word has multiple meanings, not just one and not all of them are blind. This is Koukl's whole point. Using the word 'faith' makes it too easy for some to grab the wrong English definition which takes us away from the original Greek word. Trust is the better word.

[hackenbollox]

I certainly agree with the conclusion. Trust IS a better word. However, even given complete knowledge of the principles of aerodynamics and aeronautic engineering, your faith in the performance of a plane is still blind, for the simple reason that you cannot be sure that something won't go wrong.

Faith is ALWAYS blind.

[hackenbollox]

Oh, forgot to say, dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. Never forget that.

[Chelonche]

God Wanted us to Trust Him because with Trust Love is developed.. and God IS LOVE!

[beancube2008]

Religious are organized criminals. The longer you label gods to rights, the longer you deny to believe. When you apply abstraction, you tend more to ignore a lot of obvious truths. Faith relies lesser determination, lesser mystery labeled names and mislabeled gods.

[neil1977]

nature of religion cannot be equated with sins of the father such as molestation, corruption, etc. By this I mean, IF YOU SEE THE SINS OF PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH AND YOU AUTOMATICALLY CONCLUDE RELIGION OR CHRISTIANITY IS EVIL,

Then you are throwing the baby with the bath water. Sad. Very sad indeed that too many people do not see that while MAN is fallible, the HOLY Bible is not.

[qqqquito]

It's NOT the word "faith", but the nature of the religion that drives people away.

[theologymattrz]

maybe it's your sinful nature that drives you away.

[bumpyjjeans]

The death cult spawned by the hallucinations and fairy tales of an unaccomplished tribe of ancient nomads is of no interest to me. Judeo-Christian beliefs are a cancer on mankind, leading to intolerance, injustice and genocide throughout these past two millenia. Enough already. This moron rakes in $1M a year tax free with this bullshit. Tax the devious con man!

>>> "The story of Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox has more logic to it. Prove to me the Great Lakes are not Babe's footprints!"

[MrSedarati]

blind trust

[mortenlu]

Blind trust... Still easy. Still right.

[Veritas48]

Assertions are fun

[wn5318610011]

The story of Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox has more logic to it. Prove to me the Great Lakes are not Babe's footprints!

[starfleetcadet]

I can't figure out why somebody called Greg a duouble-talker. I think that what he says in this video is very clear and straightforward, as is everything he says in his radio show. There's no double-talk going on here. Fantastic job as always, Greg!

[brainouty]

Very good definition of faith. For centuries, Greek pistis first means WHAT is believed, hence to say "trust" based ON evidence, is apt and that's not only how John used it, but James (1st of the NT books, probably). Paul and Peter, too. Well, ok: every NT writer used it that way. If you don't know this, you'll mistranslate Hebrews 11:1, which everyone does.

[bumpyjjeans]

I would never have faith nor trust in such a shady double talker as this. Whatever he's selling, I ain't buying.

[asuperchicken]

I see why someone might think this is double talk. There is allot squeezed into 2 minutes. I had to listen to it a few time to get it.

Biblical faith means trust, not blind faith.

[milkshakelover09]

i agree... bible is created not just to read.

but to read AND FOLLOW.

[Yesica1993]

LOL! What doubletalk? This is the clearest explanation of faith I have ever heard. Which point that he made do you disagree with?

[freestuffffff]

This guy is a babbling brook of white noise. I know he practices that phony smile in the mirror. Now we have accredited universities graduating such idiots with degrees in sophistry based on fairytales. It would be harmless except they dumb down society by forcing school boards to teach childish wishful thinking like "creation science" which does not even qualify as interesting fiction. It's Tammy Faye Bakker with rhetorical tricks, nothing more or less.

[danjoeblue]

You are very interesting. You cannot respond to argument so you resort to ad hominim attacks. You simply refuse to quote primary sources or even give me scholarly resources to back up your claims. You simply make hallow remarks.

Tell me freestuffffff, who are the contemporary reputable scholars from major universities that I can read up on to get your point of view? Where are the sources? Do you just make it up as you go. Do you copy & paste from anti-Christian websites? Where are the sources?

[danjoeblue]

A strange thing is that you make assumptions that I hold to "creation science" as if all Christian did. For your information, there are many leading scientists who are Christians that do not hold to "creation science" but are actually evolutionists. For example Francis Collins of the human genome project, Kenneth Miller and C.S. Lewis are/were all Christians & and evolutionists.

Tammy Faye Bakker's "ministry" was not ever supported by the majority of professing Christians in the world.

[danjoeblue]

I havn't been smiling much lately.

Why are we idiots for quoting primary sources & giving references to scholars for our beliefs. Why am I an idiot when you cannot respond to my arguments.

You never responded to the main challenges I made except to post dozens of little snippits of information about sources from antiquity that mention Jesus and how you didn't think they were reliable but you gave NO SOURCES for your claims as I did. It's clear who won this debate.

[jerelesli]

again what do you mean by fairytales?

[freestuffffff]

The FALSE comment written here earlier, cynically parroted by all Judeo-Christian death cult propagandist charlatans, LIES:

"Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Celcus, Mara-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud taken together affirm that Jesus lived ..."

That is like saying the South Park episode that mocked Scientology in detail affirms that Xenu lived, dropped his enemies in volcanoes on earth, and their evil souls stick to humans causing negativity.

[danjoeblue]

My intention was not to lie.

You said a lot about what these ancient sources said but I don't recall any quotes. I on the other hand have quoted from some of them regarding what they said about Jesus.

I read your claims about some of them and then read the original sources only to find that you my friend were telling untruths.

If you want to prove your claims then you would have to give quotes as I did instead of passing second hand opinion.

[danjoeblue]

If I did "lie" about anything it was unintentional. If you can demonstrate your view with direct quotes and sources so that I can look up your claims then I will look them up and concede anything that I was wrong about.

[danjoeblue]

Historians do use sources that record people or events that were written generations after the fact. I will cite this example again that you refuse to respond to. Plutarch's bio of Alexander the Great is used by historians to learn about his life even though it was written four hundred years after Alexander lived. Why do we do this with Plutarch about Alexander but not about with sources that reference Jesus less than 150 after his death?

[danjoeblue]

I never said these sources that I cited were contemporaneous. You have never demonstrated how in an oral culture that could pass on information accurately for generations, these sources become somehow irrelevant in establishing the existence of Jesus.

Also, you keep missing the point. I am not using these sources to establish anything other than the fact that they acknowledge that Jesus existed. They may have hated him but they admitted he existed.

[danjoeblue]

I cannot believe that I am trying to persuade someone like you about this issue.

NO scholar of repute at any major University today thinks that Jesus did not exist. This is such a dated position, I cannot believe you believe it. Again, I ask; give me 3 reputable scholars with doctorates at major universities that think Jesus never existed and I will give you dozens that know he did exist. Will you take this challenge or not?

[danjoeblue]

You still have not explained to me why the NT cannot be used in establishing the fact that Jesus existed. Paul in 1 Corinthian 15 quotes an early Christian creed that scholars date back to within 5 years of Jesus.

I think it's funny that people give you positive ratings and then give me negative ones when I am the one who has quoted primary sources and given direct scholars who you can consult to study more on this.

See N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, W.L. Craig.

[danjoeblue]

You never quoted the primary sources while you pontificated your hallow rhetoric! I remind you, you said that Lucian called Jesus a "sad fiction" but I quoted from Lucian to rebut that claim & you have not refuted it. How are we to then trust any of your other claims?

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . ."

-From Lucian, The Death of Peregrine.

He is obviously referring to Jesus

[danjoeblue]

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."

From Tacitus, Annals 15.44

[danjoeblue]

Although I am fully aware of the dispute about SOME of the references to Jesus in the works of Josephus, the following passage is not disputed by the majority of scholars as Louis H. Feldman's article on Josephus states.

Here is the quote from Josephus.

"...Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..." -From Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9.

[freestuffffff]

The Talmud in year 46 refers to one whose name and memory are to be blotted out, who was stoned or hanged on the eve of Passover for renouncing the Jewish religion (how reasonable and spiritual). Another "contemporaneous historical account" of your imaginary friend "Jesus," who tells you to obey the laws of his invisible father in the sky, which command you to convert or kill all nonbelievers?

[danjoeblue]

I NEVER SAID CONTEMPORANEOUS HISTORICAL ACCOUNT ABOUT THESE WORKS!

The fact that these people were against Christ is obvious. What are you trying to prove. You are trying to show off and that all!

Roman historian, Sherman-White said that even two generations would be too little to wipe out the hard core of historical facts in these oral cultures. As long as you cannot rebut this the fact, the other fact that these sources are 2nd century does not mean they are completely irrelevant.

[freestuffffff]

If by "Mara-Serapion" you are referring to the Syrian Mara Bar-Serapion, in a letter written by him toward the end of the first century, he briefly mentions Jews killing their "wise king" and as a result suffering the loss of their kingdom. Who he is referring to, what event he is referring to, or when it supposedly happened are unknown. Another "contemporaneous historical account" proving the existence of your imaginary friend, whose crazy father commands you to convert or kill nonbelievers?

[freestuffffff]

If by "Celcus" you mean Celsus, Celsus wrote in the years 175 - 180 against the Judeo-Christian death cult. He briefly referred to the imaginary miracle man "Jesus" character as an ordinary bastard child who practiced sorcery. Another "contemporaneous historical account" corrobrating the Judeo-Christian death cult pile of semi-literate childish pornographic fairytales cynically known as "The Bible?"

[danjoeblue]

Are you so dull? I know that these people were against Jesus. I said that when I said they were SECULAR sources. Celsus affirms Jesus' existence even if he does criticize him.

Celsus says

"born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country...she (Mary) disgracefully gave birth to Jesus...

Again, when did I say this sources were "contemporaneous historical account"?

I am fully aware of the fact that these are 2nd century.

[freestuffffff]

Lucian wrote in the second century mocking the silly beliefs of the Judeo-Christian death cult. If you are citing Lucian as "a contemporaneous historical source" then you should know that Lucian categorized your imaginary friend "Jesus" as a sad fiction and those who believed in his existence as delusional.

[danjoeblue]

I never cited these people as "contemporaneous historical sources" When are you going to quit? You are putting words in my mouth to try to make me look bad. Building a straw man like you are doing is so immature.

Again, when did I say any of the secular sources were a "contemporaneous historical source"? You are like a broken record. But it proves nothing. You are misrepresenting me. People that fall for this are non-thinking.

[danjoeblue]

Cite to me where Lucian categorized Jesus as a sad fiction.

Here is a direct quote from Lucian acknowledging Jesus and his crucifixion.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . ."

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11--13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949)

[danjoeblue]

I think it's hilarious that two people gave me thumbs down for quoting primary sources and challenging you to do the same to back up your claim. Actually it's not funny, it's very sad that people have such poor critical thinking skills that they would think that quoting a primary source is a bad thing that needs to be given thumbs down.

[freestuffffff]

Seutonius writing in the early second century mentions in one brief line Jewish riots in Rome, instigated by one "Chrestus," a common name for slaves meaning good or useful. Chronologically the event took place 20 years after Christians say their imaginary friend Jesus died. Another "contemporaneous historical account?"

[freestuffffff]

Little is known of "Thallus," the purported author of a scattered array of fragments. No one knows when he lived or if he was in fact a single individual. The surviving translations and versions of the meagre scraps attributed to someone named "Thallus" are of dubious provenance at best. Another "contemporaneous historical proof" of your imaginary friend, who tells you to obey the laws of his invisible mind-reading father in the sky, and convert or kill all nonbelievers?

[freestuffffff]

Phlegon was second century. His fragment of a brief reference to a "Jesus" character comes from its "preservation" in Bishop Eusebius' Christian propaganda of 324. Another "contemporaneous historical proof" of your imaginary friend?

[freestuffffff]

Pliny the Younger, who by his death ca.113 was a high ranking Roman prosecutor, mentioned in official letters about his handling of members of a Christ cult. No one seriously suggests he is a "contemporaneous historical source" for your imaginary fairytale friend "Jesus," who demanded you follow the laws of his invisible mind-reading father in the sky, which state you must convert or kill all nonbelievers. Present-day Christian death cult propagandists are just being silly to suggest it.

[freestuffffff]

Tacitus reportedly published his "Annals" in 116. In it he briefly mentions that Nero blamed the burning of Rome in 64 on a Christ cult. Scholars dispute the authenticity of this brief passage suggesting it was inserted later. Not even Bishop Eusebius refered to it in his Christian cult propaganda of 324. Another "contemporaneous historical account" of "Jesus" the miraculous imaginary friend, the embodiment of the invisible tyrant in the sky, who orders obedience or death? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[freestuffffff]

Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" was reportedly published in 93. The only surviving versions are from Christian "sources." There is a brief out-of-context mention of a "Jesus" character inserted in versions appearing centuries after Josephus' death, and not referred to by any writer until one Christian Bishop Eusebius in 324. So, the supposed "contemporaneous historical account" of "Jesus" can only be verified by the writings of a professional "Jesus" cult propagandist some 300 years late.

[vintijborn]

I dont care when the bible was written, if the word of god is omnipotent, it is timeless and boundless. Therefore to allow murder, and racism, and slaves, and torture straight from the mouth of god (the bible) means that god did not know that times would change? How? If he is timeless then why is the old testamen universally accepted as out dated law, and an outdated way of life? Is deuteronomy not the word of god?

[vintijborn]

So we should re-arrange the english language to benefit christians now? What else do you want? You have already manipulated the constitution, manipulated the declaration, manipulated the supreme court.

[discipulusLogos]

When did Koukl say English should be changed to accommodate Christians? He simply demonstrates how certain words take on new meanings. Look up the word gay in a dictionary. Even though it means merry or lively, it's hardly used that way in conversation anymore. The same goes for the word faith. In popular use, it has come to mean "blind unthinking adherence" or "belief regardless of evidence." He is clarifying what the Bible means by the word "faith." Active trust covers it perfectly.

[vintijborn]

What the bible means by the word faith and what he means by the word faith are two very different things. Unless he can translate greek and ancient hebrew through thousands of years of mistakes and generations of different copys from different scribes. There is no ORIGINAL scripture, the oldest dating dogmatic scripture that we have (mathiew),was scribed 50 years after mathiew actually wrote it.

[discipulusLogos]

You need to deal with my argument. Has the word "gay," in popular use, come to mean something different than it used to or not? After you admit that meanings of words can change over time, I'll deal with your other false assertions about the Bible.

[vintijborn]

The word gay was made universal by gays actually coming out of the closet that they were put into by thousands of years of catholic oppression. Thats not a word that you should bring up. My point is, no matter what word you use....things are changing, and not in favor of dogma. In just the last 300 years, slaves have been freed, women can vote, gays can come out, segregation is gone. All things that were "OK" with god according to the bible.

[discipulusLogos]

I want to clarify my example and then bow out of this conversation because you cannot stay on topic. I have no ill will toward gays and have many gay friends and colleagues that I get along with just fine. It was simply the quickest example of a word that has changed meaning. I can think of other words where the meaning has changed over time. Changed meanings: STARVE (suffering or dying from cold-now means hungry), HAUL (move by force or violence-now means transport in a vehicle),

[discipulusLogos]

Changed meanings cont'd: CORN (any grain for consumption-now refers to what Native Americans called maiz) and finally, FAITH (from the Greek pisteo: active trust based on evidence-now means blind adherence w/o reason or irrational leap into unsubstantiated belief). I could go on, but it would not be productive since you won't admit a simple uncontested fact w/o going off on tangents like catholic oppression, slavery, segregation etc. Thanks for the brief discussion.

[danjoeblue]

#1 It's spelled MATTHEW not MATHIEW.

#2 Although the traditional view was that Matt. was the earliest most scholars now consider Mark first.

#3 Mark is dated between the 50's to 70 AD by most contemporary scholars.

#4 The manuscript evidence for the NT far outweighs the evidence of other works of antiquity such as Homer's Iliad.

#5 We don't have the originals for any works of this era! If historians only relied on original manuscripts we would know next to nothing of the history of the Greeks!

[vintijborn]

Exactly my point, you fool. Today we have exact copys. Back when the bible was being scribed thousands of times and spread out to different continents how do you think they copied it? By HAND. Every word by HAND thousands of times, in an ancient greek and hebrew language that has many meanings for each of its words. So the fact that there is no original, is very important because the original message could not possibly be accurate after thousands of mis-interpretations and mistakes.

[vintijborn]

AAAAAND, There is no way you or any of us can prove the accuracy of the bible without those original scriptures. And we all know one word can change the whole meaning of a structured sentence to mean something very different. Either way, if not one shred of historical evidence favors the bible, then why should I believe any word of it? I dont get how parts of it can be disproved hundreds of times yet people still believe it literally.

[danjoeblue]

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Celcus, Mara-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud taken together affirm that Jesus lived at the time of Tiberius Caeser, lived a virtuous life, was a wonder worker, had a brother named James, claimed to be the Messiah, was crucified under Pilate, was crucified at the eve of the Passover, darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died, his disciples believed he was raised back to life, died for that belief...

[danjoeblue]

...Christianity spread rapidly through Rome, and his disciples denied Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.  All of these are confirmed by the sources that I cited earlier. This proves you wrong about no evidence supporting the Bible.

[danjoeblue]

Many people believed that victims of crucification were not nailed but tied to a cross and thought the Bible must therefore have been wrong. Then in 1968 an ossuary box was found on ammunition hill that contained the remains if such a victim. A spike was still in the man's ankle. This confirmed what the Bible said about crucification and proved the skeptics wrong.

You want more outside evidence that confirms the Bible as reliable? I could give you dozens of such examples that are verifiable.

[danjoeblue]

Do you know Greek and Hebrew? Do you know the methods that historians use to determine the reliability of an ancient document?

Historians like Sherman-White trust much of the NT as historical. Textual critics like C.S. Lewis, F.F. Bruce, & Bruce Metzger also trusted it and committed their lives to the Christian faith. Are you more educated in textual criticism than Metzger?

Archaologists such as Sir William Ramsey became Christians after seeing archeology confirm the reliability of Acts.

[danjoeblue]

Do you not realize that we 5,686 Greek manuscripts of the NT? Having this many enables us to weed out the vast majority of the mistakes.

There is only 643 Greek Manuscrips of Homer's Iliad yet we trust this work to be fairly accurate as to it's original.

Did you know Metzger of Princeton estimates that the N.T. we have today is 98% to 99% accurate as to it's original?

[discipulusLogos]

When did Koukl say English should be changed to accommodate Christians? He simply demonstrates how certain words take on new meanings. Look up the word gay in a dictionary. Even though it means merry or lively, it's hardly used that way in conversation anymore. The same goes for the word faith. In popular use, it has come to mean "blind unthinking adherence" or "belief regardless of evidence." He is clarifying what the Bible means by the word "faith." Active trust covers it perfectly.

[VVesss]

Also, I'd think that a present-day miracle with no natural explanation would be much more convincing than writings about miracles which happened so long ago we can no longer verify whether or not they've actually happened.

[discipulusLogos]

Any vital defense of miracles requires more than 500 characters. But, are you saying you'd accept as credible a miracle if it were recorded today rather than long ago? If so, why? Why doesn't an account written in ancient times carry the same credibility as one written today? Would you believe the accounts if you lived back then? You do trust the documents that tell of the Peloponnesian War recorded by Thucydides, right? In many ways, New Testament documents are more reliable.

[SubtIeArt]

There are no credible miracles. There is good luck, coincidence, liars, and the inaccuracy of human senses.

Accounts written in ancient times are not as credible as those written today because people were far more superstitious and ignorant back then, not that we're much better now.

[VVesss]

"It [faith] is awareness of the truth of something and the willingness to act because you've been so convinced of the truthfulness of this."

The problem is that many are not convinced. I don't think that the word "faith" has become corrupted. If anything, more are realizing that belief through trust is simply belief with little-to-no evidence.

[discipulusLogos]

If you grew up in a healthy home, you believed your parents because all the evidence you had pointed toward their love for you; they earned your trust by consistently demonstrating their concern. This is exactly Koukl's point. Jesus left us enough evidence to earn our trust. If some choose not to trust, fine, but let's not delude ourselves by thinking the popular notion of faith (as you've characterized it) is what the Bible speaks of. Belief base on trust REQUIRES evidence.

[SubtIeArt]

I follow my mind before I follow my parents. Don't get me wrong, my parents are great and everything, but I'm a questioner by nature. My family goes to church and is happy.

[Yesica1993]

Thanks for showing that you didn't listen to a word this man said. He just finished explaining that faith these days is thought to mean a blind leap into the dark, and how this is NOT what the biblical use of the word faith means.

[SubtIeArt]

How is faith not a leap into the dark? Please explain what reason any individual would have to believe such nonsense.

[THEOBAMASTORE]

Live your faith and doubt your doubts not live your doubts and doubt your faith. Let your life affect your feelings not your feelings affect your life.

[SentientUnit]

If God cared so much about truth, I wouldn't have to look up the Greek or Hebrew meanings of words in the bible.

[SentientUnit]

Another reason why it is hard to believe in BibleGod is Because he gave mankind a corruptible bible. I am sure he could have come up with something better.

[Yesica1993]

Yes, because you've read this "corruptible bible" how many times?

[lolatqq2]

"Don't make knowledge you're god. It is of course, very powerful, but it has no personality." - albert einstein

[Teddy649]

It's easy to say "Faith" and not really mean much by it other than a vague belief.

[NADLOR1]

I "trust" your comments to be true.  Finally someone who is eloquent in Christian thought. Thank you STR and Greg.

[remedialp]

Yeah, I'm sick of catching flack about my beliefs. I just wish God hadn't stopped performing miracles when video cameras were invented.

I mean its not like most faiths originally flourished in areas where it happened to be a death sentence to not believe. They flourished because they were true.

Just remember, prayer is an effective weapon against all kinds of disease. Well, the kinds that also disappear by themselves, or may have been misdiagnosed.

Keep up the good fight!

[ikimasu1]

The first troll for this video. Congrats.

[Yesica1993]

What idiocy are you spouting off? How about dealing with what this video said?

[disciplle7]

love it.

[ikimasu1]

I had never thought of that or even really heard that before, but on the surface that does make a lot of sense. Looking at, for example, Abraham, you see him pick up and move, but not off of the kind of "faith" we think about today, but rather off of trust in the Lord to keep him and his family safe. Very interested stuff. I will definitely be looking into this further. Thanks!

[unabashedlyredeemed1]

So great to see & hear Mr. Koukl expound so articulately about the Christian faith.  I listen regularly to STR's podcast, easily one of my favorites. Thank you for doing the Lord's work, spreading the Gospel, teaching Christians how to be better ambassadors for Christ and dispelling the falsehoods spread by those who don't know any better.

[moonglow38]

Oh that was explained SO well. I hear constantly on here how us Christians just 'blindly believe', or we have 'stopped thinking' that we are ignorant and naive believing in 'fairy tales' and this just isn't true, nor does God ask us to just blindly believe! How things got so messed up, I don't know but I am glad to see this video! Excellent!

[bolinstephen]

Amazing. Amen. I completely agree.