“Say cheese’ was the first post; it may be helpful for context to look at that short account.
We know there were two elephants, and a man with a camera who snapped the express image of the true. In this light, it would be well to keep in mind ‘many infallible proofs,’ and as you probably know, the large eared animals are simply ancillary to this account.
I submit that the word of a good man is evidence enough to justify your trust. So what if he is 12,000 miles away. If he said he saw them, this matter is settled.
Question: If his word is not enough evidence, if his eye witness account is not good enough to believe his testimony, if the pics taken with his very hands are not enough, ask yourself why you need more proof, and why you doubt his truthful accounting. You say there may be possible weaknesses, and you need more proof? Ok then.
He was obviously alive and his eyes were open. He really did see two elephants; not rhinos. He was sober.
Oh did I say he had a camera…..and the fact that he was on a tour bus with 4 other double decker buses, totaling 500 people? Yep, cameras clickin left and right, ‘say cheese’ seemed to be getting on people’s nerves.
His punched ticket for Nairobi is a good souvenir, as is his elephant key-chain. His plane ticket and passport were all stamped with time and date. His vacation pay was included by his employer. All 153 co-workers wished him well on his safari vacation. All truthful accounts.
There were verifiable, reliable, and infallible proofs that this man saw the elephants. He was there in Africa. The word of a good man would have been sufficient.
I repeat, there were more than 500 witnesses on the buses. Remind you of something? When the Lord appeared to more than 500 at once after he rose again, is not their word good for you? Is not their evidence your evidence?
Taken together, do we not have MANY infallible proofs as to the truthfulness of scripture? Indeed.
A man by a fire denies the Lord. Yes, he was human. The same man with James and John saw the dazzling brightness and effulgent glory of the Lord’s person on the holy mount, and Peter later wrote: ‘WE WERE EYE WITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY.’ His accounting is good enough for me.
There would be absolutely no reason under creation to be suspicious of Peter’s testimony, as there was also no reason to doubt a man’s word across continents while on safari.
We believe the testimony of men having lesser evidence in mundane things, and do not extend the same courtesy to God. The express image of God can easily be seen in His infallible word, which verifies the living Word. Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.’ Pretty strong definition. And yes, a simple camera confirms faith, for even the unbeliever knows that the unseen can be seen.
Are not the words and acts of the disciples verifiable, reliable, and infallible proofs?
‘Touch me and see, a spirit does not have flesh and bones.’ The disciples saw the Lord on the sea-shore, where he had prepared a fire of coals and fish. They saw him ascend into heaven. ‘Our eyes have seen, and our hands have handled the word of life.’ ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it up.’ (His very body) ‘I will rise again.’
There walked with him two on the road to Emmaus, and they spake of the things of Moses in the law, and the prophets, and in the Psalms the things concerning Himself.
While not having seen, there is every reason to trust an accounting, especially where the God of heaven is involved, as He can surely preserve His word with no effort. A man saw two elephants, snapped a picture, and the camera does not lie for it reveals what has been put into it, in this case the hand of God has recorded every detail.
The word of God is ever and always enough, as it is forever settled in heaven. God knows the heart of man, how we are subject to ‘needing proof,’ and He has not failed yea rather, His word is replete with proof after proof after proof.
Cameras will cease, but the word of God abides for ever.