Proof the Bible is God's Word

[Laser Eyes]

1. The history of how we got the Bible
The survival of the Bible is a remarkable story. During the time that the Old Testament was written other nations produced religious literature but while they were forgotten the Bible has survived. The Jews who produced the Old Testament were an oppressed people. They had to fight against powerful enemies such as the Philistines, the Ammonites and the Moabites. When the empire was divided the Assyrians wiped out the northern kingdom and the Babylonians crushed the southern kingdom. At times various enemies like Haman tried to annihilate the Jews. The Syrians tried to force the Jews to follow Greek customs and Greek Gods. Despite all these difficulties the Jews and the Hebrew scriptures survived while the nations around them disappeared.

The Christians who produced the New Testament were also oppressed. The Jewish authorities tried to stop them spreading their ideas. The Roman empire tortured and killed Christians and the emporer Diocletian ordered the burning of all Bibles. Once again the threats to the survival of the Bible failed.

Why did the Bible survive when other books that did not face these challenges were forgotten? If the Bible really is the word of God then no humans could destroy it.

Another aspect of this story of survival is the repeated recopying of the Bible on perishable material. The discovery of Bible manuscripts, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, prove that the Bible has come down to us with amazing accuracy, despite the risk of human error and attempts to deliberately alter the text.

But the story doesn't end there. The empire of Christendom tried to destroy the Bible in a different way. In the Middle Ages the Pope ordered that the Bible be kept in Latin and not translated into the common language. It became a crime to own a Bible and people suffered shocking punishments for trying to translate the Bible and make it available to others. People have been willing to risk death just to own a Bible. It has inspired a devotion and willingness to die unparalleled in human history. No other book in history has survived despite such fierce opposition by enemies. The distribution of the Bible today is estimated at four billion copies in two thousand languages. The story of the Bible as a book is unique.

2. A higher wisdom
(a) The Bible contains wisdom that is beyond merely human capabilities. In a world that has always promoted the pursuit of wealth the Bible recognises: "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil" - 1 Timothy 6:10 However the Bible also recognises the practical need for money when it says: "For wisdom is a defence as money is a defence" - Ecclesiastes 7:12 Substance abuse is a serious problem in many countries including affluent western societies. Two thousand years ago The Bible writer wisely counseled us to stay in control of ourselves and not let addictions rule our lives. When speaking about the food we take into our bodies Paul said: "I will not be brought under the power of any." - 1 Corinthians 6:12 We live in a corrupt world, where your business partner one day may be the person that steals your life's savings the next. The Bible includes "a false witness who speaks lies" among six things that God hates. - Proverbs 6:19 Has there ever been a more wise saying than Jesus' advice: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12 What the Bible says about marriage is unfashionable by today's standards. But if husbands obeyed the Bible's counsel to "love their own wives as their own bodies" (Ephesians 5:28) and if wives respected their husbands (Ephesians 5:33) maybe we wouldn't see the spiralling divorce rate and the family breakdown this causes. The Bible commands sexual abstinence prior to marriage. - Matthew 19:4-6 The Bible's approval of sexual relations only in marriage, is considered old-fashioned today. But a long hard look at the results of "sexual freedom": unwanted pregnancies, teenage motherhood, sexually transmitted diseases; shows that there is much to be said for the strict standard set down in the Bible. Far from bringing a feeling of freedom the loose morals prevalent today have brought pain and suffering. The Bible's practical suggestions, if followed, raise the physical and mental health of those who follow them. It might be said that many books written by men do the same. But remember the writing of the Bible started in 1513 B.C. and ended in 98 A.D. The wisdom contained in the Bible was unknown at the time of its writing. The Bible provides guidance and sets standards of conduct in business dealings, working life, family relationships, raising children and clean moral conduct that are beneficial if followed.

The Bible is one of the most influential books in history. Abraham Lincoln: "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man." Robert E. Lee: "In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength." Mahatma Ghandi: "When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems, not only of our countries, but those of the whole world." John Quincy Adams: "I speak as a man of the world to men of the world, and I say to you, search the Scriptures. The Bible is the book of all others, to be read at all ages, and in all conditions of human life."

3. A claim consistently made by the writers that they were writing God's thoughts and not their own
I'm reluctant to include this one. Statements by a writer that his words are inspired by God are self-serving and are certainly not proof that they are. But what is remarkable here is that the claim is repeated by many different writers time and time again. In 2 Samuel 23:2 the writer states "The spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was on my tongue." Over a thousand years later Peter makes the same claim, "For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit." - 2 Peter 1:21 John writing in exile on the island of Patmos in the year 96 also credits the book of Revelation to God: Revelation 1:1-2 That the same claim is made by so many different men at widely differing times and places is something to consider. Contrast this with what we know of human nature. Do the academics, psychologists, scientists, professors and other intellectuals of today readily give the credit for their writings to someone else? Isn't it human nature and intellectual pride to take the credit for what one produces? Why would 40 different writers, who mostly never met or knew each other, over a period of 1600 years, all refuse to take any credit for what they had written? Can you think of any other example that even comes close to this?

(continued below)

[Laser Eyes]

4.Scientifically accurate
(a) Long before modern scientists concluded that the universe had a beginning Moses wrote in Genesis that "God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1 How did he know that there was a certain moment in time when the universe began?

(b) At a time when the world had little knowledge or understanding about the earth two Bible writers revealed a knowledge that could only have come from one source. Writing in the wilderness in about 1473 B.C. Moses said that God "hangs the earth on nothing." - Job 26:7 This description accords with the appearance of the earth suspended in space due to the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force. At the time, and for centuries later, there were all sorts of myths and legends, one common view was that the earth rested on 4 elephants standing on a large sea turtle. The Egyptians thought the universe was a north-south rectangular box with the earth on the bottom and Egypt in the centre, and at four cardinal points very high mounts held up the sky. How did Moses know 3000 years before Copernicus, and without those snazzy space shuttle pics, that the earth hangs self-poised in empty space? If you think about it, what the Bible writer said is the last thing a human mind would have come up with. Gravity plays such a big part in our lives, everything rests on something, its what we understand, observe and live by, we even have a saying for it: "What goes up, must come down". Why would a man think the earth just floated in space, resting on nothing, contrary to everything else in his life? Writing in the eighth century B.C., 2200 years before Magellan sailed around the world, Isaiah told us that God "sits above the circle of the earth." - Isaiah 40:22 How did he know the earth was round when everybody else on earth thought it was flat?

(c) One of the objectives of the law that God gave to Israel was to protect the health and welfare of the people. Egyptian medicine prescribed the application of human and animal excrement as a remedy for various ailments. Their use could result in serious infections including tetanus or lockjaw. Considering that "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22) the regulations found in the Mosaic law that relate to physical cleanliness show remarkable knowledge of sound sanitary procedures. One regulation dealt with the segregation and burial of excrement. The hazard of leaving excrement exposed was not generally known until last century. - Deuteronomy 23:12-13; another required anyone who came in contact with a dead person to undergo a cleansing procedure - Numbers 19:11-22; the importance of quarantining persons with transmissible diseases was recognised - Leviticus 13:46

(d) God instructed Abraham that "every male of yours eight days old must be circumcised." - Genesis 17:12 The requirement that circumcision take place on the eighth day was restated in the Mosaic law. - Leviticus 12:3 Why the eighth day? Only recently physicians have discovered that essential blood-clotting elements are higher on the eighth day than at any other time of a child's life. Did the Bible writer just happen to pick the perfect day by chance?

(e) Long before modern medicine made the connection the Bible recognised the psychosomatic principle, that there is a connection between a person's physical health and his mental attitude. "A merry heart does good, like medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones." - Proverbs 17:22 A sound heart is life to the body, but envy is rottenness to the bones." - Proverbs 14:30

(f) When Moses wrote Genesis there were many strange theories about the causes of day and night. Men thought daylight was caused by a bright vapour and darkness by a black vapour that ascended from the ground. Yet the Bible accurately states the cause of day and night to be lights in the heavens that give light on the earth and "divide the light from the darkness". - Genesis 1:14-18

(g) In the Egyptian society in which Moses grew up and was educated it was taught that man came from Ra's tears. But in Genesis 2:7 Moses wrote that God formed man from "the dust of the ground." Every chemical found in the human body is found in the ground. Of all the things that Moses could have chosen to say that man was created from he just happened to pick something that was chemically consistent with the human body. Was it just a good guess?

(h) In Ecclesiastes 1:7 the earth's amazing water cycle, unknown in ancient times, is vividly described: "All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the rivers come, there they return again." Where did Solomon learn this in 1000 B.C.?

(i) An examination of the scientific accuracy of the Bible would not be complete without looking at the account of man's creation. Is the creation of man by God unscientific? Does modern science support evolution or creation? One way to test evolutionary theory is by examining the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Evolutionary theory suggests a fossil record that contains very simple life forms gradually changing into complex ones with transitional links between them and new body features starting to appear. Creation suggests a fossil record that contains complex life forms suddenly appearing, variety only within species, no transitional links between species and no partial body features. Many scientists openly admit that when you look for links between biological families they just aren't there. Even Darwin in his Origin of the Species admitted the fossil record did not support his theory when he said, "I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, ... imperfect to an extreme degree." After more than a century of research, and an extensive record now discovered, the fossil record reveals the same thing it did in Darwin's day: Complex life forms appearing suddenly without transitional links between different species. Far from supporting the theory of evolution, the fossil record lends weight to the arguments for creation. In his book Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan said, "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

(j) Let's look at another aspect of whether science supports the Bible version about how life began. Evolutionary theory suggests that life began spontaneously by a chance collision of chemicals and energy. But more than a hundred years ago Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life comes only from life. The gulf between living and non-living things grows wider as scientific knowledge increases. The spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter belongs in the realm of science fiction, not science fact. Of the Bible's explanation, that life was created by a living God, it can at least be said that it is not inconsistent with established scientific knowledge.

5. A remarkable consistency
Suppose you asked 40 writers to write 66 books over a period of 1,600 years. The writers were all from varied backgrounds, some were educated, others were farmers and shepherds and most of them lived at different times in history and in different places. What are the chances that their writings would harmonize? The Bible shows remarkable internal harmony even in the smallest details. What may seem to be a contradiction is usually explained by the fact that the Bible writers had different backgrounds and different writing styles and these differences are reflected in the writing. Also if two writers relate the same event one might include details that the other leaves out. Additionally, two writers might use different methods, one might record something chronologically while another might use a different method.

(continued below)

[Laser Eyes]

6. Fulfilment of prophecy
The Bible says that God is the one "Declaring the end from the beginning" - Isaiah 46:10 The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies and even some that we are seeing come true today. Obviously I don't have room to tell them all here. I will limit myself to a few, the fulfilment of which are historical facts beyond dispute.

(a) History records the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 B.C. and the Jews being taken into captivity. Isaiah prophecied it 150 years before it actually happened. - Isaiah 39:5-6

(b) On a fateful night in 539 B.C. the Persian general Cyrus overthrew the city of Babylon. His soldiers were able to approach along the banks of the Euphrates by diverting the course of the river. They entered through gates that for some reason had been left open. They captured the palace and killed Belshazzar. The city had fallen in one night. Two hundred years before it happened Isaiah foretold the destruction of Babylon, that its rivers would dry up, that Cyrus would conquer the city and that its gates would not be shut. - Isaiah 44:27, 45:1 Jeremiah made the same prophecy 50 years before it happened. - Jeremiah 50:38, 51:11, 30

(c) After the predicted 70 years in exile, in 537 B.C. Cyrus returned the Jews to their homeland. Jeremiah foretold the Jewish exile would last exactly 70 years. - Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10

(d) In the eighth century B.C. Isaiah foretold that Babylon would eventually be completely destroyed and never again be inhabited. - Isaiah 13:19-22 In the sixth century B.C. Jeremiah made the same prophecy. - Jeremiah 51:37, 41-43 The prophecy was not fulfilled until the fourth century A.D. and to this day Babylon is a bunch of desolate ruins.

(e) The book of Daniel, written in the sixth century B.C. during the Jewish exile in Babylon makes startling predictions about the dominance of various world powers. Daniel accurately predicted that the Medo-Persian army would conquer the Babylonian empire even though it was a dominant power at the time. - Daniel 8:3, 20; an attempted invasion of Greece by the fourth king of Persia - Daniel 11:2; the defeat of Medo-Persia by Greece under Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. - Daniel 8:5-7, 21; and its eventual division into 4 smaller powers - Daniel 8:8, 22

(f) In the first century it was foretold that many claiming to be Christian would bring reproach on the Bible and the name of Christianity. - Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43; 2 Peter 2:1-2. The empire of Christendom promoted military campaigns against the Muslims, the so-called holy crusades. The appalling conduct of the church to prevent dissemination of the Bible I recount elsewhere. During the last few centuries the military expansion of the supposedly Christian nations has been marked by cruelty and greed. The last two world wars have been fought between "Christian" nations. We should remember that their conduct does not represent true Christian teachings. Is that the kind of prophecy you would expect of a purely human creation?

(g) There is perhaps space for one more. This amazing prophecy is coming true right before our eyes. Jesus' disciples asked him what will be a sign of the last days. He said, "Many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumours of wars ... For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom and there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places ... because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold." - Matthew 24:5-12 Some may argue that these things have happened in the past and they would be right, but they have never before happened together and on a worldwide basis and in addition they are becoming more and more pronounced.

7. Logical answers to questions that only God can answer
There's an old saying: "Nobody's perfect." And yet who can explain why? Why is every person on earth flawed in some way? We don't think of animals as being imperfect. We don't think of trees, or plants, or flowers, or anything in nature as being imperfect. We don't even think of rainy days as being wrong. And yet somehow we know that there is something wrong with us. The Bible provides an explanation of how human life started, how imperfection was introduced by the first man, and how this has brought about war, crime, sickness, famine and ultimately death . Man is not evolving, he is degrading. The Bible provides a complete and logical explanation about the world today and how it got this way, how we can achieve happiness, what will happen in the future to the earth and mankind. The answers the Bible provides to life's questions are like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which, when put together, produce a picture that is logical and makes sense.

8. Surprising candour
People don't like to admit their own mistakes. And they certainly don't like to immortalise their errors in writing for posterity. The Bible writers display a surprising candour and honesty about their weaknesses. In Numbers 20:1-13 Moses reveals a serious mistake which led to him not leading his people into the promised land. Jonah told how he disobeyed a direct command from God out of indifference. - Jonah 1:1-3 Many passages in the gospels record the failings of Jesus' disciples. The disciples failure to understand Jesus. - Matthew 16:5-12 Peter's embarrasing failure to walk on water - Matthew 14:28-31; his denial of Jesus 3 times - Matthew 26:69-75; the disciples argued among themselves who was the greatest among them - Mark 9:33-34; Luke 22:24 The apostle Paul told how he used to beat Christians - Acts 22:19; and he described himself as the worst sinner in the entire world. - 1 Timothy 1:15 If the writers were going to make false claims wouldn't they most likely falsify the things which show them in a bad light?

[Zero]

Wow, long posts...all wrong, of course, but at least they are long!


(Copyright violation, anyone? I'll go check with Kerrie...)

[Shadow]

Gee Zero your post is so long and well thought out! You give so much proof and reason to your opinion! [o)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
Gee Zero your post is so long and well thought out! You give so much proof and reason to your opinion! [o)] Read my edit...Kerrie may need to delete the whole thing.

[Royce]

Once again, Zero, you take great delight in showing your ignorance and arrogance. Laser Eyes' post was for the most part factual whether we agree with the conclusions or not. Even if we don't agree that does not make it wrong. Do you know for a fact that it is a copywrite violation or is that just an assumption on your part.

Please engage brain before engaging mouth or pen. By not doing so you are proving tha your name fits.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Once again, Zero, you take great delight in showing your ignorance and arrogance. Laser Eyes' post was for the most part factual whether we agree with the conclusions or not. Even if we don't agree that does not make it wrong. Do you know for a fact that it is a copywrite violation or is that just an assumption on your part.

Please engage brain before engaging mouth or pen. By not doing so you are proving tha your name fits.
(I've actually read this posted online somewhere, so I know it is a C&P...I just don't know if it is a copyright violation or not...yet. It may have a waiver on it, but he should still attribute the source)

Ooooh, insults...good debate tactic!

Let's break it down, shall we?

1. The history of how we got the Bible
Nothing impressive here, actually. Oppression yeild fanatic devotion to a cult, which explains how the Bible 'survived'(more on that later)


2. A higher wisdom
This is simply nonsense. The Bible is a mix of common sense and a few ideas that are nonsense. Nothing impressive or otherworldly about saying 'greed is bad', we all know that.


3. A claim consistently made by the writers that they were writing God's thoughts and not their own
Which is no proof of anything at all. What better way to deflect criticism than to say 'Don't blam me, God said it'?


4.Scientifically accurate
Again, nonsense. Also ignores the history of the Greeks, who knew MUCH more about the natural world than the Jews, and earlier too.


5. A remarkable consistency
Suppose we look at reality here. When the Bible was formalized, the Church decided to go through some 200 books, and picked teh ones that fit together the best. Selective editing explains the consistancy(which is lacking in the Bible, actually; many so called 'consistancies' strain logic.)


6. Fulfilment of prophecy
More bunk. If Chapter 1 of a novel predicts something, we expect thatv by the last chapter it will have happened. We don't act surprised about that, do we? There has been NO confirmed prophetic fulfillment, except what the Bible contains within itself, and no thing can be its own proof. Semi-self consistancy is no proof of anything but good editing.


7. Logical answers to questions that only God can answer
Logical? HA! And, how does the Bible distinguish itself from other holy books? Not at all, actually, which is the point. Declaring to have the final answer is not the same as actually having it.


8. Surprising candour
Since the Jewish culture is based on guilt and self-hatred, there is no surprise that the Bible writers show their faults as a means of establishing their hukmble natures. It is a cultural trait, not proof of anything.

[radagast]

LE,
Ignoratio elenchi with a sprinkling of Non causa pro causa and Petitio principii.

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
LE,
Ignoratio elenchi with a sprinkling of Non causa pro causa and Petitio principii.

In English, if you don't mind?

[radagast]

All are argument flaws:

Ignoratio elenchi - Irrelevent conclusion flaw
Non causa pro causa - Basically there is no demonstrated connection between cause and effect, as argued
Petitio principii - Begging the question flaw - this fallacy occurs when the premise is at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.

[Laser Eyes]

(Copyright violation, anyone? I'll go check with Kerrie...)

(I've actually read this posted online somewhere, so I know it is a C&P...I just don't know if it is a copyright violation or not...yet. It may have a waiver on it, but he should still attribute the source)Zero, you have not read what I posted online or anywhere else. I spent much of my free time over the past week writing it. All of the above was written by me. What I posted bothered you so much that you went looking for anyone's help to find a reason to get rid of it. I was angry when I read that. Now it amuses me to think of you going on a fruitless search through the internet to try and find my post. The arguments are not new. But my writing of them is. It is an outrageous slur to accuse someone of copying someone else's work. You made the accusation publicly without knowing it was true and sought help from anyone to try and prove it! In my opinion you are unfit to hold a position of authority in a forum. I think you should remove your accusation above and any indication that it was ever made and it ought to be accompanied by an apology.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Zero, you have not read what I posted online or anywhere else. I spent much of my free time over the past week writing it. All of the above was written by me. I notice you have removed the request you made in your first response: "copyright violation anyone?". So what I posted bothered you so much that you went looking for anyone's help to find a reason to get rid of it. I was angry when I read that. Now it amuses me to think of you going on a fruitless search through the internet to try and find my post. The arguments are not new. But my writing of them is. It is an outrageous slur to accuse someone of copying someone else's work. You made the accusation publicly without knowing it was true and sought help from anyone to try and prove it! In my opinion you are unfit to hold a position of authority in a forum. I think you should remove your accusation above and any indication that it was ever made and it ought to be accompanied by an apology. Actually, it only shows that you know your stuff there. And indeed it does look like it was borrowed from elsewhere. I would just take the whole thing as a compliment. [;)]

[megashawn]

Scientifically accurate you say?

How about explaining this one to me then. From Genesis:


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.



Ok. This says god created the lights in the firmament of heaven (space) to divide the day from night.

The fact of the matter is that all of the "Lights in heaven" would not cast enough light on earth to provide for daytime.

verse 16, it states god made two lights, the greater light to rule heaven, and the lesser light to rule the night.

First, he already created all these lights to provide daylight, as was stated in verses 14 and 15. Also, the story speaks of the sun as if it was something different then all the other lights. In reality, we know that the sun is a star, just as is all the lights.

Also, the moon itself does not generate light, but merely reflect light from the sun. If the moon was to rule over the night, why does it not cast its own light?
edit: More importantly, why is it that the bible implies that it does? (calling it a light)

Now, more for your accuracy, why is it that at one point in time, the bible stated the earth as being the center of the universe, and it does not now?

While you were pointing out a scripture about it saying the earth was round, why is it that the church was so violently opposed to such speculation later?

Evolution. It happens dude, face it. The fossil record is incomplete, and does not account for everything that has/does live.

http://www.cmonitor.com/community/news/west/2003/letrs0219a_20032.shtml

Really, how are we possibly supposed to find evidence of everything that ever walked this earth? Even today we find living things we've thought were extinct for thousands of years.


Ok, as zero pointed out, there was a point in time where the bible you and I read today was manufactured. Books were added, books were removed. You act as if the bible is the oldest religion on earth.

See, people often forget that before Moses's god ever set that bush on fire, Native americans were dancing around fires praying for rain. Or that ancient celtics were kicking it in stonehenge. Or the ancient greeks, whom also had much more knowledge of the physical world, as was pointed out. How about the epic of gilgamesh, which is known to be older then some bible people believe the earth to have existed. Also thought to be a source of alot of the bibles stories, ie the flood.

There is alot of good information in the bible. Like zero said, its mostly common sense. My dad once told me "Common sense is not common." and I've found this to be oh so true. So of course, we need a way to get the common sense messages to the not so intelligent persons of the world.

Another thing about the bibles historic accuracy you claim, what about exodus. Seems recent discoveries have all but debunked the entire book. They now say that the workers were not slaves at all, but valued workers. They had nice housing, and even an example of one person who was injured during life, and was nursed back to health. Why would you waste the time to save one injured slave, when it would be more cost (time) effective to simply put another in his place?

Also, there is nothing in the egyptian record of the emperor from exodus, or of moses, or of the plagues. There has been a natural explanation provided for the parting of the reed swamp, not red sea, that a volcanic eruption several miles away was at a perfect timing. Divine intervention or coincidence? I'll rest my vote on a coincidence, unless something divine intervenes and changes my post before I hit the submit button.

[megashawn]

Actually, it only shows that you know your stuff there. And indeed it does look like it was borrowed from elsewhere. I would just take the whole thing as a compliment.

Agreed. If a person of authority thinks something is a copyright, and it indeed is not, then you should definetly feel flattered.

I kinda wondered myself if you didn't copy and paste from somewhere else, just due to the content and size.

How about we drop this lil pettyness, and continue the thread.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth ...And here the greater light would be the sun and the lessor light would be the moon. I think the two verses which came before were just leading up to these two verses.

And did people know that the moon didn't shine by itself in those days? I kind of doubt it. [;)]

[megashawn]

And did people know that the moon didn't shine by itself in those days? I kind of doubt it.

Agreed. However, a person inspired by an all knowing super being should, as laser eyes claimed on other examples.

[megashawn]

You know, I just realized something. I completly agree with laser eyes.

I and others have determined that the only way an all knowing, all powerfull, all loving being can exist, is in the minds of the believer.

In this case, I fully agree that the bible is Gods word. Because god is mans imagination, and man can imagine some pretty crazy stuff. Don't believe, just check out the Sci-fi channel one night.

Anyhow, god is imaginary, atleast, noone can prove his existance beyond that level.

Really, makes everything else irrellevant.

[ray b]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And here the greater light would be the sun and the lessor light would be the moon. I think the two verses which came before were just leading up to these two verses.

And did people know that the moon didn't shine by itself in those days? I kind of doubt it. [;)]

IT is all in the timing in the bible story
earth first
then later the sun, moon and other stars

we now know the stars first, then later the sun
even later the earth, as we are made of star stuff recycled thru a star that went super nova
so at no point was there a dark earth

BTW what is a firmament??? strange name for a interstellar vacume??

percution of christians is greatly exaggerated by them. the romans were far more tolerant of others belifes then the christians ever were.
there is no evidence of jews being wiped out other than when in revolt against rome in the holy lands.
local riots were not empire wide or supported by the army,or goverment so all events against both religions were local in nature and breif in duration and few in number killed esp for christians.

look up the real number kill by romans
3000 christians is the number I have found for total killed over many years.
allmost all for not worshiping the imperator as a god, something few romans BELIVED but were required to go thru the motions of by laws

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Zero, you have not read what I posted online or anywhere else. I spent much of my free time over the past week writing it. All of the above was written by me. What I posted bothered you so much that you went looking for anyone's help to find a reason to get rid of it. I was angry when I read that. Now it amuses me to think of you going on a fruitless search through the internet to try and find my post. The arguments are not new. But my writing of them is. It is an outrageous slur to accuse someone of copying someone else's work. You made the accusation publicly without knowing it was true and sought help from anyone to try and prove it! In my opinion you are unfit to hold a position of authority in a forum. I think you should remove your accusation above and any indication that it was ever made and it ought to be accompanied by an apology.
If I'm wrong, I'm sorry...but I honestly don't think I am.

[radagast]

Originally posted by ray b
percution of christians is greatly exaggerated by them. the romans were far more tolerant of others belifes then the christians ever were.
there is no evidence of jews being wiped out other than when in revolt against rome in the holy lands.
local riots were not empire wide or supported by the army,or goverment so all events against both religions were local in nature and brief in duration and few in number killed esp for christians.


That the christians were persecuted: They were much more so than the Jews. The Romans considered real religions to be of ancient origin, so considered Jews strange, but practicing a religion. The christians they considered a strange cult. For the first 100 years or so they went well out of their way to avoid killing them for their practices (and considering how often Romans killed people for what we would consider insignificant things, this is fairly amazing). Your correct in that, mostly, they were they were in violation of not performing their civic duty (public demonstrations actions showing allegience/worship of the emporer). It wasn't until the christians started going well out of their way to destroy Roman temples that public opinion turned to punishing them. Even then, there was more restraint than I'd have expected from Roman society.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

1. History? There are lots of old, surviving works of literature. Take The Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance. That's older that the Bible, and the Bible clearly rips it off. So if God wrote the Bible than he's a plagiarist.

2. Higher wisdom? Like when Jesus said "do unto others?" Buddha already said that six hundred years earlier. There's nothing in the Bible that couldn't have already been said by someone else.

3. Lot's of people say God is talking to them. Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush for instance.

4. Scientifically accurate? If God wrote the Bible than he's not only a plagiarist but an idiot as well, because the world ain't flat and pi ain't three.

5. Internal consistency? Have you even read the Bible? Not only filled with contradictions, but could you please explain to me how Numbers is in harmony with Revelations?

6. Yeah, prophecizing things that have either already happened or are incredibly vague. Neat trick.

7. Logical answers to questions only he can answer? "Hey God, should we allow homosexual marriage?" "HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE EXECUTED! LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE. ALL MEN ARE SINNERS." "Thanks, God."

8. Suprising candor? Only mistakes you've reference are characters, not authors. If God came down and said, "you know what, I'm sorry, I was full of **** about that whole creation story. Do you forgive me?" Maybe then I'd say candor.

[Zero]

No offense, Laser Eyes, but the arguments you presented only "convince" people who already believe.

[radagast]

The Bible: A meme gone terribly awry.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
1. The history of how we got the Bible


Irrelavent to proof...


2. A higher wisdom
(a) The Bible contains wisdom that is beyond merely human capabilities.


Both incorrect and absurd to assume that the wisdom in the bible is beyond human capabilities. Numerous cultures, far removed from the middle east arrived at many, if not all, of the wisdom, often phrased differently, as in the bible.

LE, you've studied the bible a great deal, but seem to have ignored the parts of human history not relating to the bible - a serious mistake if you plan to try and back up claims, such as the one above.


3. A claim consistently made by the writers that they were writing God's thoughts and not their own


Fine, but irrelavent to any evidence whatsoever, much less constituting a proof.

[Continued in next post.]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
4.Scientifically accurate
While they got some things right, and some vaguely right, you've been very careful to pick and chose. There were many that did contradict both common sense and scientific knowledge (say the flood, or how all those carnivores would have survived after the flood without eating the herbavores, how some parts of the bible would lead us to believe the earth is the center of the universe [aka Galileo's troubles]).


5. A remarkable consistency

Considering all the contradictions I've seen (some posted), I'd say consistency is not only not proof, nor evidence, it's not even correct.

Assuming it was correct, it wouldn't be considered either proof or evidence of the truth of the bible, only that a group of people, believeing pretty much the same things, wrote a series of small books that are consistent. Kinda like saying the Cthulu mythos is correct, because it's consistent. Or the series of Star Trek novels is correct due to consistency.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
6. [b]Fulfilment of prophecy

Linguistic analysis of some of the more original texts has shown that much of the prophecy mentioned was written after the accounts that the prophecy was meant to predict. If the prophecy didn't predate the event, then it's hard to call it prophecy.



7. Logical answers to questions that only God can answer

Again, other cultures have come up with similar things. Many before the advent of the bible.



8. Surprising candour


This isn't evidence of anything. Many fables do the same thing. People like stories with morals, you cannot demonstrate moral consequences without having people with failings.

[Laser Eyes]

No offense, Laser Eyes, but the arguments you presented only "convince" people who already believe.That's no problem Zero. I'm certainly not offended because someone doesn't change their beliefs after reading my post. I knew the odds of that were about one in a million. When you deal with God and religion you are dealing with people's emotions and change is difficult and usually slow. But there just might be one person out there who starts thinking along the lines of "Could there really be something to all this ... ?"

Oh btw one more thing. What you said is not really true. The arguments that I presented have in fact convinced many people throughout history that the Bible is God's word. Do you think everyone who believes the Bible is God's word does so for no reason?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
That's no problem Zero. I'm certainly not offended because someone doesn't change their beliefs after reading my post. I knew the odds of that were about one in a million. When you deal with God and religion you are dealing with people's emotions and change is difficult and usually slow. But there just might be one person out there who starts thinking along the lines of "Could there really be something to all this ... ?"

Oh btw one more thing. What you said is not really true. The arguments that I presented have in fact convinced many people throughout history that the Bible is God's word. Do you think everyone who believes the Bible is God's word does so for no reason?

No, I think people have emotional reasons to believe fairy tales, and that no logic is needed, except to quiet that small voice of reason saying "This is the most ignorant Dungeons& Dragons BS I've ever heard!"[g)]

Seriously, I can't imagine anyone being convinced by the arguments you spent all weekend writing all by yourself.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

hello all you happy people,
LaserEyes please take a look at this site (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/). I think it has the answers to all your arguments....

[Laser Eyes]

Thanks Guybrush. I had a glance there. There's obviously a lot of information there and it would take some time to go through it all. I will have a look at it from time to time when I can.

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Hey Zero, why dont you back off you imcompetent slob, you still havent voiced any legitimate refutation to this specific post. You have only harped the long and widely recognized critique of religon.

Do you have any REAL arguements to THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC at all? Or are you just butting into a very well structured debate with ignorant babble?

posts like this will get you banned...i am noting this in my quote, and your post will be deleted...do it again, and i will nominate you into the hall of crackers...

[Mattius_]

Kerrie, I can cite instances for each of my comments if you like...

[Zero]

Here, for the non-reading members of PF, is my refutation of Laser Eyes' initial posts(minus one or two spelling errors):
Originally posted by Zero


Let's break it down, shall we?

1. The history of how we got the Bible
Nothing impressive here, actually. Oppression yeild fanatic devotion to a cult, which explains how the Bible 'survived'(more on that later)


2. A higher wisdom
This is simply nonsense. The Bible is a mix of common sense and a few ideas that are nonsense. Nothing impressive or otherworldly about saying 'greed is bad', we all know that.


3. A claim consistently made by the writers that they were writing God's thoughts and not their own
Which is no proof of anything at all. What better way to deflect criticism than to say 'Don't blam me, God said it'?


4.Scientifically accurate
Again, nonsense. Also ignores the history of the Greeks, who knew MUCH more about the natural world than the Jews, and earlier too.


5. A remarkable consistency
Suppose we look at reality here. When the Bible was formalized, the Church decided to go through some 200 books, and picked teh ones that fit together the best. Selective editing explains the consistancy(which is lacking in the Bible, actually; many so called 'consistancies' strain logic.)


6. Fulfilment of prophecy
More bunk. If Chapter 1 of a novel predicts something, we expect thatv by the last chapter it will have happened. We don't act surprised about that, do we? There has been NO confirmed prophetic fulfillment, except what the Bible contains within itself, and no thing can be its own proof. Semi-self consistancy is no proof of anything but good editing.


7. Logical answers to questions that only God can answer
Logical? HA! And, how does the Bible distinguish itself from other holy books? Not at all, actually, which is the point. Declaring to have the final answer is not the same as actually having it.


8. Surprising candour
Since the Jewish culture is based on guilt and self-hatred, there is no surprise that the Bible writers show their faults as a means of establishing their humble natures. It is a cultural trait, not proof of anything.

Now, if anyone wants to throw insults around, try refuting my post.

[Mattius_]

complete spin!, thats all i can say!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mattius_
complete spin!, thats all i can say!

Hmmmm...you can do better than that, can't you?














Oh, wait, you haven't shown me any EVIDENCE that you can do better, so I can't say whether you can do better or not, can I?

[Mattius_]

What more do you want? its a dead matter; You want it to go further, I believe i said everything i needed to say in my first post, and i stand by that.

every point you made had facts that were easily debateable. as a consequence, we could throw slander on either side all day long about 'truth'

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Kerrie, I can cite instances for each of my comments if you like...

I don't believe it was the comments Kerrie was refering to, but the name calling. Most forums, this included, will ban folk for name calling and insulting behaviour.

It is extremely easy to be drawn into that situation. The key is to avoid letting your emotions be lured into reacting. I always count it as a personal victory when I can avoid the emotional knee-jerk type reactions to stupidity or anger in another. When you do fall victim to letting your emotions into the act, can you truly say your in control of your own thoughts.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mattius_
What more do you want? its a dead matter; You want it to go further, I believe i said everything i needed to say in my first post, and i stand by that.

every point you made had facts that were easily debateable. as a consequence, we could throw slander on either side all day long about 'truth'
In other words, you won't refute what I said, and you chose to flame me instead?

[Laser Eyes]

Most forums, this included, will ban folk for name calling and insulting behaviour.But not for lying or publicly accusing someone of plagiarism without knowing or caring whether it was true.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
But not for lying or publicly accusing someone of plagiarism without knowing or caring whether it was true.

Nice try...read back to where I said I was sorry if you actually wrote it.

Now, why don't you try staying on topic, everyone...especially you, LE! It was your thread, after all(and I apologise for my contribution to the hijack)

[Laser Eyes]

Nice try...read back to where I said I was sorry if you actually wrote it.

Now, why don't you try staying on topic, everyone...especially you, LE! It was your thread, after all(and I apologise for my contribution to the hijack)Well it was a pretty half-hearted apology Zero, but at least it was an apology. Actually I had dropped it and I wasn't going to mention it again. But radagast made a comment that I thought called for reply.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
But not for lying or publicly accusing someone of plagiarism without knowing or caring whether it was true.


Which is a pity, but these are much harder things to ascertain. While Slander certainly would be grounds for expulsion, it's hard to prove. And take lying, even if you know something said is false, it's an order of magnitude harder to know that the person making the false claim, knew it was false. I disagree with many, many theist here, but I would never assume they were lying.

Also, does the fact the forums don't police all possible transgressions make some OK? If this were part of arguing a point, it would seem very close to the Tu Quoque (you too) flaw.

If, however, you were referring to anything I've said, please point them out, so that I may address them.

[megashawn]

Well, there really isn't much more to be said. As Guybrush Threepwood linked to the Skeptics bible, Zero presented arguements for each of LE's points, which have yet to been responded to.

I myself have asserted that before you try to prove the Bible is gods word, you need to prove god is an actual being capable of producing a word.

There is not one single person on this earth that can prove god is anything more then imaginary. And when I say prove, I don't mean pointing at a tree or cloud and saying "See".

And if your one of those people who simply attributed every little part of existance as proof of god, then you are simply altering reality so that you don't have to cope with it.

Also, I would like proof that the Quran is not God's word, that the Necronomicon is simply a peice of fiction, rather then the true (I think one of the oldest) explanation for the origins of existance.

You see, if you want to "Prove anything about a God" to a person who doesn't believe in a god, you're not only going to have to offer solid proof on your belief, but also why 75% of the rest of the world has gotten it wrong.

And to me, this is the biggest proof. If there was one true god, why is there all these millions of religions? It also seems that if gods word were so precious, he'd been able to had it written in a single language all man could understand, and have the original texts.

Is there one scrap of original bible text around anymore?

Sure, someones gonna say "Oh, satan did it to confuse us" or "They are false idols", simply thumping another generic response out the bible for a question that gets right to the heart of the matter.

I dunno if this is completly on topic, but its a lil bit closer.

[Nade_Fodder]

I`m new to this so I`m just going to put a few ideas forward.

If the bible is the word of God then obviously he knew nothing about physics or time managment.

THE FLOOD.
An Ark that would enable placement of animals, food for those animals and plants {Because some plants we have now wouldn`t have survived the flood} would have to be several miles long or several thousamd feet high. It would have taken Noah and his sons around 90 years to complete using approx 100,000 acres of woodland and 100tons of metal not very likely.
Animals that are found in the arctic would not have survived long enough for Noah to get there and pick them up and they would have died in the warm climate where the Ark was built, so another thing not very likely.
The last thing is physics. All rain is from the evaporation of water on earth, for it to rain none stop all over the planet for forty days and forty nights the north and south poles would have to have evaporated, which is not possible due to the fact that for the temp to grow so high as to cause the ice at the poles to evaporate and not simply melt would have killed everything anyway so the only way the world could have flooded was for the poles to melt not from forty days and forty nights of rain.

In conclusion the bible was written by man from the uneducated words of man.

The bible has changed so often over the years to suit what is discovered by science that it is hard to believe that any of the original writing is still there. And don`t forget that the early writings said the earth was a flat disc as was the sun and the moon.

Thats it ive had my rant cya l8r.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
But not for lying or publicly accusing someone of plagiarism without knowing or caring whether it was true.

Perhaps it was a hasty accusation. But I hope y'all can cut Zero some slack on this point. We mentors quite frequently find that such long posts are taken from someone else's website. It's a natural first impression. Based on Laser Eye's history here at PF, I'm willing to accept that he wrote it. So perhaps we can focus on the content of the post rather than the source for now.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
(i) Evolutionary theory suggests a fossil record that contains very simple life forms gradually changing into complex ones with transitional links between them and new body features starting to appear. Creation suggests a fossil record that contains complex life forms suddenly appearing, variety only within species, no transitional links between species and no partial body features. Many scientists openly admit that when you look for links between biological families they just aren't there.


"Many scientists" is not the majority of experts in the field who do see the links. There are many examples of transitional* features in the fossil record (examples provided upon request). Genetics has greatly augmented the ability to draw connections between species/families alongside the fossil record evidence.

* This terminology (along with "partial features") implies a directed goal from Feature A to Feature B...which is not an accurate reflection of the theory of evolution which pertains to selection forces on variations within a population (a branching of variations, not a ladder or one-way road). Similarly, simple-to-complex is not required for evolution. Most life has remained simple (most life throughout history has remained as bacteria) and there are examples of complex-to-simple (e.g., multiple toes changing to a single hoof). Evolution is change.

I would also say that Creationism suggests a fossil record*, with not just "complex life appearing suddenly", but in which all complex and simple life (aside from speciation within a "kind") appear instantaneously in the beginning. Humans and trilobites should be found in the same rock (they aren't).

* - Somehow! since the fossil record we see would take far longer than 6000 years to create (fossilization is a rare and slow process). That, plus the stratigraphy & geography of the fossil finds are still not explained with Creationism.


Even Darwin in his Origin of the Species admitted the fossil record did not support his theory when he said, "I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, ... imperfect to an extreme degree."


Darwin was indeed concerned that, because fossilization is so rare, the fossil record would be an imperfect proof of his theory. But he did not say that the fossil record disproved his theory.


After more than a century of research, and an extensive record now discovered, the fossil record reveals the same thing it did in Darwin's day: Complex life forms appearing suddenly without transitional links between different species. Far from supporting the theory of evolution, the fossil record lends weight to the arguments for creation.


Disagree. The fossil record shows a clear transition of life forms through the ages. The difficulty is in connecting each dot-to-dot because, again, fossilization is rare (and it's hard to find the fossils that did form). But, as you say, there is an extensive record available after a century of work and that does paint a picture of transition. Human fossils did not appear instantly...they had precursors that show up in the fossil record (e.g., earlier species of the genus Homo, preceeded by species of the genus Australopithecus, which was preceeded by the genus Ardipithicus, and so on and so on.).

Just recently, a well supported transition of land animals to whales was found in the fossil record.

It's worthy to note that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (proposed modification to the current theory of Neodarwinism) offers an explanation for examples of stasis in the fossil record (the idea being that the PACE of evolution speeds up and slows down at various times rather than proceeding at a constant slow pace as suggested by strict Darwinism). But even those faster times are still over long time frames.


In his book Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan said, "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."


I'll have to dust off my copy of Cosmos to check that. It seems to be taken out of context, knowing that Sagan did not support Creationism.

[Zero]

As a completely side issue, debunking evolution, even if it were possible, doesn't prove the Bible to be true.

[Royce]

No it doesn't, Zero et al. But the debunking creationism doesn't mean that the bible contains no truth either. Personally I think the Creater used evolution to create a viable ecosystem and terraform earth so that it is habitable for life as we know it and are a part of.

[Phobos]

What?!? These aren't "either-or" situations? [;)]

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures…”
- - Genesis 1:20

Sounds about right. [:)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Phobos
What?!? These aren't "either-or" situations? [;)]

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures…”
- - Genesis 1:20

Sounds about right. [:)] And I'm sure some of the historical stuff is accurate as well.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Zero
And I'm sure some of the historical stuff is accurate as well.

Mythology, history, and philosophy rolled up into a religious guide book.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Phobos
Mythology, history, and philosophy rolled up into a religious guide book.


You say that like it's a bad thing. [;)]

[FZ+]

In his book Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan said, "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."
Consistent, yes. But it would require an attitude of macroscopic deception to give people the false impression, which makes that approach a non-starter when it comes to rational consideration.

[Iacchus32]

Is it a matter of proof? Or, a matter of being able to make the association through one's experience?

I think that within context of the way it was presented to me and, that within context of the way I've come to understand it, it doesn't require proof. There's just too about it to suggest that it's anything other than "authentic."

And, while it may be considered a bit of a stretch to claim it to be the very "Word of God" -- which, for all intents and purposes need not be stipulated (IMO) -- we must also consider the fact that this is probably the closest thing on earth that is. [;)]

[Guybrush Threepwood]

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvgen19.htm

ok, can someone please explain why God said what he said in the verses 19:31 to 19:38
and what's the moral of that???

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvgen19.htm

ok, can someone please explain why God said what he said in the verses 19:31 to 19:38
and what's the moral of that??? What's the difference between that and God impregnating the Virgin Mary? Or, of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, by which the Jewish race sprang? It's all about the human predicament isn't it? Granted most people may have difficulty grasping an idea such as the Immaculate Conception, but then again this is one thing you need not necessarily understand, in order to understand the rest of it.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What's the difference between that and God impregnating the Virgin Mary?

well if I read that right, Mary did't gave God wine till he pass out and then slept with him...

Granted most people may have difficulty grasping an idea such as the Immaculate Conception, but then again this is one thing you need not necessarily understand, in order to understand the rest of it.

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible....
My point is that given this passage and many more, I don't think that the Bible is God's word more than "The C programming language" or whatever book you want to choose....
Could you say that God wrote (inspired) that passage witout a shadow of doubt???

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
well if I read that right, Mary did't gave God wine till he pass out and then slept with him...Well she must have done something to catch his eye! [;)]

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible....
My point is that given this passage and many more, I don't think that the Bible is God's word more than "The C programming language" or whatever book you want to choose....
Could you say that God wrote (inspired) that passage witout a shadow of doubt??? I think given the time and circumstances, the Bible gives a fairly accurate account of what it was like to live back in those times. Why shouldn't it attempt to be accurate in this sense? At the very least it can be appreciated for its candor.

The Bible also says something to the effect that "the letter killeth," meaning if you follow something to the extent of the "letter of the law," then there is no life in that either. So I don't think in any way the Bible contradicts itself in this sense either.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why shouldn't it attempt to be accurate in this sense? At the very least it can be appreciated for its candor.

What sense is that? that it is God's word?
Candor, what a poetic way to describe the killings and the plagues......[8)]

The Bible also says something to the effect that "the letter killeth," meaning if you follow something to the extent of the "letter of the law," then there is no life in that either. So I don't think in any way the Bible contradicts itself in this sense either.

where is that? could you show some specific verse please....

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
What sense is that? that it is God's word?
Candor, what a poetic way to describe the killings and the plagues......[8)]What's the point in having a relationship (between God and His people) if it doesn't involve being honest?


where is that? could you show some specific verse please....
"Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." (2 Corinthians 2:1-11).
These few verses probably help explain the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where the one involves the establishment of "the law" in the strictest sense -- primarily for survival -- the other involves the "fulfillment" of that law, involving the "flexibility" of life that lives in accord with it -- once the culture has been established.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
These few verses probably help explain the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where the one involves the establishment of "the law" in the strictest sense -- primarily for survival -- the other involves the "fulfillment" of that law, involving the "flexibility" of life that lives in accord with it -- once the culture has been established.

Let me describe for you my problem with the Lot story.
The Bible describes a clear case of incest which is not punished by God (or by anyone...). Well suposedly, God flooded all the earth for something more ambigous than that (I think it was because people had forsaken Him, or something like that).
When does God forgive and when does he punish?
What are you trying to say, that the spirit of the law is that we should forgive the daughters?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
Let me describe for you my problem with the Lot story.
The Bible describes a clear case of incest which is not punished by God (or by anyone...). Well suposedly, God flooded all the earth for something more ambigous than that (I think it was because people had forsaken Him, or something like that).
When does God forgive and when does he punish?
What are you trying to say, that the spirit of the law is that we should forgive the daughters? I think his two daughters were being very prudent, and clearly providing for the sake of theirs and their father's posterity. While it almost sounds like it could have been a custom or, perhaps the start of one? ...

Also, from the standpoint of whoredom, did you know you're not supposed to judge others? For it's not the act that condemns you, but what's in your heart when committing the act that condemns you. This is why it's important not to punish people according to the "letter of the law."

[kat]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible....


Well..a lot of people are allowed to do a lot of things in the bible stories..I think maybe it has something to do with "freewill" and all that, ya know.[;)]
As for that other passage in the bible, the one that forbids incest..I think your speaking of Deuteronomy 23. An interesting point that you might want to remember....Deuteronomy was written 100's of years later. In fact, not even the ten commandments had been written at the time.
Also, it might reflect on the deceit of the daughters that the Moabites and the Ammonites, the descendant of the daughters became bitter enemies of Israel. I'm not sure this can honestly be considered a ringing endorsement of incest or as having gone unpunished.
Maybe, much of your confusion is simply a lack of knowledge.

[Zero]

Wow, you guys can debate mythology right into the ground, can't you?[6)]

[FZ+]

To put it in another way:

Which is better?

To view the events of the bible eg. 7 day creation, the Lot story, Noah's Ark as metaphors without a neccessary correspondance in fact.

OR

To view the rules of the bible as vague ideas that should not represent a system of absolute morality.

OR

Both? [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kat
Also, it might reflect on the deceit of the daughters that the Moabites and the Ammonites, the descendant of the daughters became bitter enemies of Israel. I'm not sure this can honestly be considered a ringing endorsement of incest or as having gone unpunished.Yeah, I was kind of wondering about the possibility of that myself, but I didn't have time to look it up. [:)]

But it's like you say, we can't be sure it's a ringing endorsement of what actually happened.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
To put it in another way:

Which is better?

To view the events of the bible eg. 7 day creation, the Lot story, Noah's Ark as metaphors without a neccessary correspondance in fact.

OR

To view the rules of the bible as vague ideas that should not represent a system of absolute morality.

OR

Both? [;)] Somewhere between literally and figuratively I guess? ... Which, is pretty much the way we learn anything don't you think? [;)]

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think his two daughters were being very prudent, and clearly providing for the sake of theirs and their father's posterity. While it almost sounds like it could have been a custom or, perhaps the start of one? ...

maybe a crash course in genetics will reveal some of the limitations of that technique.... oh I forgot they didn't know genetics. But God did and maybe a footnote in the Bible saying don't do that when you're with your father on a desert island would clear things a bit. But hey, if He waited for 100 years to say something about it maybe it's not such a big deal.
yep a real beautiful custom too... could you think of more of that kind???
and even more have you heard of such a custom to be practiced today?

Also, from the standpoint of whoredom, did you know you're not supposed to judge others? For it's not the act that condemns you, but what's in your heart when committing the act that condemns you. This is why it's important not to punish people according to the "letter of the law."

So I can torture you to death or even put some poison in the water reservoir, but if in my heart there's only sadness for my dog who died two weeks ago I should be forgiven?
Are you saying that we should not punish people by what they are doing but by what's inside their hearts when they are commmiting the act? Could you apply that to Ossama?

I think the bible is just a book as any other one. I am not arguing that there's no freewill in bible or there are not good ideas. I only say that if God said the words of the Bible he is a real lousy narrator and that the Bible is not a special book for humankind and should not be treated as one.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
maybe a crash course in genetics will reveal some of the limitations of that technique.... oh I forgot they didn't know genetics. But God did and maybe a footnote in the Bible saying don't do that when you're with your father on a desert island would clear things a bit. But hey, if He waited for 100 years to say something about it maybe it's not such a big deal.
yep a real beautiful custom too... could you think of more of that kind???
and even more have you heard of such a custom to be practiced today?If you believe in Adam and Eve, then we are all "by-products" of incest. [8)]

Even so, I don't think such a thing comes highly recommended, except under dire circumstances such as this.


So I can torture you to death or even put some poison in the water reservoir, but if in my heart there's only sadness for my dog who died two weeks ago I should be forgiven?It sounds a bit extreme. Even so, I see no reason why we couldn't forgive you and put you out of your misery at the same time ... [;)]


Are you saying that we should not punish people by what they are doing but by what's inside their hearts when they are commmiting the act? Could you apply that to Ossama?Do you harbor any hatred towards Osama Bin Laden? I don't ...


I think the bible is just a book as any other one. I am not arguing that there's no freewill in bible or there are not good ideas. I only say that if God said the words of the Bible he is a real lousy narrator and that the Bible is not a special book for humankind and should not be treated as one. Can you argue that any other book is closer "in essence" to God than the Bible is? Perhaps there are others, but then again they would probably constitute different religions. [;)]

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Even so, I don't think such a thing comes highly recommended, except under dire circumstances such as this.

dire circumstances? they lived in a cave. Seems to me they were just reluctant (or maybe lazy) to go to the next town and settle there.... even then there must have been some civilization near by. I can't believe some normal folks who just escaped from a doomed city would stay in a cave for the rest of their lives

It sounds a bit extreme. Even so, I see no reason why we couldn't forgive you and put you out of your misery at the same time ... [;)]

This is forgiveness to you? I don't wanna know what would have happened if you didn't forgive me....

Can you argue that any other book is closer "in essence" to God than the Bible is?

Tell me what's the essence of God and I'll try to find a book.

[kat]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
dire circumstances? they lived in a cave. Seems to me they were just reluctant (or maybe lazy) to go to the next town and settle there.... even then there must have been some civilization near by. I can't believe some normal folks who just escaped from a doomed city would stay in a cave for the rest of their lives



GOd, I know, what idiocy! You would think they'd at least have the sense to pick up the phone and call 911!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
dire circumstances? they lived in a cave. Seems to me they were just reluctant (or maybe lazy) to go to the next town and settle there.... even then there must have been some civilization near by. I can't believe some normal folks who just escaped from a doomed city would stay in a cave for the rest of their livesActually, it's just one of many stories I've read, which I don't find the need to dwell on which, for some reason you do! [g)]


This is forgiveness to you? I don't wanna know what would have happened if you didn't forgive me....I probably would have been dead anyway if you had poisoned the water supply! [;)]


Tell me what's the essence of God and I'll try to find a book. Now why would you trust me in the first place? ... Please don't ... [;)]

[megashawn]

You know something that would make a real good peice of proof?

A prophecy from the bible, in which it was not fuffilled within the bible, but here recently.

Of course I've heard people say the WTC was predicted, ww2, etc, but how hard is it to predict that there is going to be a war, or buildings blown up?

Any quotes from the bible pop in your head?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
You know something that would make a real good peice of proof?

A prophecy from the bible, in which it was not fuffilled within the bible, but here recently.

Of course I've heard people say the WTC was predicted, ww2, etc, but how hard is it to predict that there is going to be a war, or buildings blown up?

Any quotes from the bible pop in your head? Yes, here are some pretty interesting ideas I've kicked around with the book of Revelation, where I substituted a "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day." For example, Revelation 12:7 corresponds to December 7th, which speaks of the war that starts in heaven, and Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. Hmm ... Could it possibly have something to do with the "imperialistic dragon" of Japan which, happened to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th? I give several other examples here, including a lengthy piece about the World Trade Center bombing.

Also, in the letter to President Bush -- yeah, that's right -- I suggested Iraq was probably responsible for the bombings (although I later realized it wasn't the case), which seems kind of ironic, because here we were are now winding the whole the down with the conquering of Iraq!

http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68

[megashawn]

Well, after reading that page, and the email, I now know for certain that I never want to be the president. Guess I need to change my email address.

While your associating numbers, you also seem to be using alot of confusing tactics to attempt to make your point. So according to your 12:7 idea, you truly believe that America is represented metaphorically as Micheal and his angels? hahahahahaha

Ok, I forgot that a person can prove peanut butter exists by showing you jelly.

Interesting read, you ever consider writing fiction?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Well, after reading that page, and the email, I now know for certain that I never want to be the president. Guess I need to change my email address.Do you mean because of nuts like me? [;)]


While your associating numbers, you also seem to be using alot of confusing tactics to attempt to make your point. So according to your 12:7 idea, you truly believe that America is represented metaphorically as Micheal and his angels? hahahahahahaDid you know that the identity of the body in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was named Michael Joseph Blassie? Which seems to suggest, "He who wards off blasphemy?" While it's funny how when I discovered this (a TV program about the year in review), that on the very next day, January 2nd, 1998, I fell asleep and had a vision of a man lunging at someone with a knife. And, come to find out later on the late-night news, that the first person who was murdured in the Portland, Oregon area, was named Michael Joseph Scholls! And guess how he died? In a knife fight! Now isn't that strange?


Ok, I forgot that a person can prove peanut butter exists by showing you jelly.Well, actually it's sort of like filling in a cross-word puzzle.


Interesting read, you ever consider writing fiction? Actually, to be honest, I'm not good at making things up. [;)]

The association thing with numbers by the way, is merely the ability to recognize things by their patterns.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually, it's just one of many stories I've read, which I don't find the need to dwell on which, for some reason you do! [g)]

wont' bother you any more. Take only the parts you like from the Bible, ignore the rest of "God's words" if you don't like them...
why don't you apply the "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day" to the whole Revelations and see how many valid prophecies you have?

Now why would you trust me in the first place? ... Please don't ...

that remark is totally out of line IMO [:((] [:((]. I usually don't post in this forum (only read) but I consider you an challenging opponent

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
wont' bother you any more. Take only the parts you like from the Bible, ignore the rest of "God's words" if you don't like them...Now why should I have to defend myself over this matter?


why don't you apply the "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day" to the whole Revelations and see how many valid prophecies you have?It's totally unnecessary.


that remark is totally out of line IMO [:((] [:((]. I usually don't post in this forum (only read) but I consider you an challenging opponent Except that I don't like compromising myself merely for the expediency of others. Hey if you have a problem with something man, I would suggest you "drop" the negativity. And maybe it wouldn't become such a major issue? [;)]

[megashawn]

Yes, here are some pretty interesting ideas I've kicked around with the book of Revelation, where I substituted a "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day." For example, Revelation 12:7 corresponds to December 7th, which speaks of the war that starts in heaven, and Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. Hmm ... Could it possibly have something to do with the "imperialistic dragon" of Japan which, happened to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th?

You seem to be rather proud of your december 7th idea, as you repeated it, 3, 4 times on your site.

Anyhow, it seems like quite a coincidence, but only after applying your methods. Like someone suggest, what happens when you put that whole method to work on the entire book of revelations?

Also, you seem to take this one line out of context, as the original verses posted below reveals:

12:7
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

12:8
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.


You suggest that micheal and his angels are a metaphorical representation of the United States? That the unknown soldier tomb happened to be named Micheal. Do you have any idea how generic that name is? Where do you get that Micheal Joseph Blassie impliess "He who wards of blasphemy"

At first glance, you provide some seemingly compelling evidence. After rereading, it seems you use tactics of religion pushers such as confusion and repetitive statements to attempt at making a point.

So basically, without some extreme twisting around of the statements made in Revelations, there are no events specifically describing events that happen now.

You know, something like a passage "And there will be a great nation, and a group of terrorists will crash a plane into one of its greatest buildings."

From reading your guest book, seems it works well on those already duped.


I'll tell ya what. Whats the next big thing thats going to happen, not happened yet. It seems with all your prophetic dreams and connections this should be an easy one for you. Then you can reference this thread to use as proof once it's happened.

One more question for ya. What makes you so special? Why is it that you get the messages, interpretations, dreams etc, when so little of the world is aware of them?

And what kind of relation are you trying to make between Greek gods and christianity? The only one I can see is they are both products of early man and limited understanding of nature.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
You seem to be rather proud of your december 7th idea, as you repeated it, 3, 4 times on your site.No, only because it's a compelling idea, one of many that I work with.


Anyhow, it seems like quite a coincidence, but only after applying your methods. Like someone suggest, what happens when you put that whole method to work on the entire book of revelations?Did you bother to read any of the other examples on my page? It doesn't sound like it. Or, if you didn't understand something perhaps you should say so? Your "attacking me" is not going to change things.


Also, you seem to take this one line out of context, as the original verses posted below reveals:Yes, that's a very interesting word, "prophecy," how do you know which way something is going to lean? And yet the only things I have spoken of here are things which are obvious, in the sense that they "stand out," and suggest a possible relationship. I haven't made any real predictions have I?


You suggest that micheal and his angels are a metaphorical representation of the United States? That the unknown soldier tomb happened to be named Micheal. Do you have any idea how generic that name is? Where do you get that Micheal Joseph Blassie impliess "He who wards of blasphemy"You're the one who brought it up, no doubt because you thought I had no reply. And how generic is the name Michael by the way, compared to hundreds of thousands of other names? Why not Tom, Dick or Harry? Or even Cynthia?

You see you can pick apart each one of things individually and find the least little thing about it, and say, "Nah, that isn't right," but you can't keep doing this when these things keep happening over and over again and begin to establish a pattern. It's like putting together a jig-saw, if you have one little piece of the puzzle by itself, without the rest of the pieces to compare it to, fine, it doesn't mean anything. And yet if you have an entire box of pieces, then maybe you can begin to piece it all together. Which is really all I'm trying to do.


At first glance, you provide some seemingly compelling evidence. After rereading, it seems you use tactics of religion pushers such as confusion and repetitive statements to attempt at making a point.Tactics huh? You're the first one who has ever accused me of that! Then again I don't get many people to read my book (at least that I'm aware of).


So basically, without some extreme twisting around of the statements made in Revelations, there are no events specifically describing events that happen now.What the hell did you want anyway, the whole thing etched in gold? Yes, this is the only way we can make anything sound reasonable is by twisting it around. Hmm ...


You know, something like a passage "And there will be a great nation, and a group of terrorists will crash a plane into one of its greatest buildings."And yet if I were to make a prediction long into the future, it would probably be reflective of my "own times," and most likely inhibit the people in the future from interpeting it ...


From reading your guest book, seems it works well on those already duped.Do you know how many people have signed my guestbook in the last six years? 20 maybe? I wouldn't base anything upon that. I hardly ever read the damn thing anyway.

And what are you afraid I might make some money off it? I can assure I've been working on it for fourteen years now, after having put in thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of my time, and I have yet to make one thin dime!


I'll tell ya what. Whats the next big thing thats going to happen, not happened yet. It seems with all your prophetic dreams and connections this should be an easy one for you. Then you can reference this thread to use as proof once it's happened.Actually most of my work speaks of the "synchronicty" -- I hope that's not too fancy of a word for you? -- that already exists. I'm afraid it doesn't work well for predicting the future, although I have had a few predictations come true.


One more question for ya. What makes you so special? Why is it that you get the messages, interpretations, dreams etc, when so little of the world is aware of them?Or maybe this is really your problem? If you understood some of the experiences I've had to go through, many of which I wouldn't wish upon anyone, then maybe you would understand? [;)]


And what kind of relation are you trying to make between Greek gods and christianity? The only one I can see is they are both products of early man and limited understanding of nature.Only goes to show that God comes in many shapes and sizes -- or, as some would term, "masks" -- and explains why many people will never find it.

[Iacchus32]

Actually, I probably could have spared a lot of time having to write all of that, if I had just reiterated what you stated in quotes ...


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, here are some pretty interesting ideas I've kicked around with the book of Revelation ... Boy that was a big waste!

[kat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, here are some pretty interesting ideas I've kicked around with the book of Revelation, where I substituted a "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day." For example, Revelation 12:7 corresponds to December 7th, which speaks of the war that starts in heaven, and Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. Hmm ... Could it possibly have something to do with the "imperialistic dragon" of Japan which, happened to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th? I give several other examples here, including a lengthy piece about the World Trade Center bombing.


So uh..wait..let me think here....So..you're saying that Stephen Langton was phrophetic when he broke the bible up into chapters in the 12th century? or uh..oh..no...wait...you must be saying that Robert Estienne was phrophetic when he further broke those chapters up into verses on this little carriage ride to lyons, france in the mid 1500's? Is that it?...that what your saying?! cause I can't see any other way for the date and verse to be part of biblical phrophesy unless these two guys were involved, well over a 1,000 years after the death of Christ!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kat
So uh..wait..let me think here....So..you're saying that Stephen Langton was phrophetic when he broke the bible up into chapters in the 12th century? or uh..oh..no...wait...you must be saying that Robert Estienne was phrophetic when he further broke those chapters up into verses on this little carriage ride to lyons, france in the mid 1500's? Is that it?...that what your saying?! cause I can't see any other way for the date and verse to be part of biblical phrophesy unless these two guys were involved, well over a 1,000 years after the death of Christ! Excuse me? It wasn't originally written in English either now was it? And, I suppose since it's possible to call the whole thing up on my computer screen, instead of the original parchment, then that would invalidate it too?

I think the thing that people fail to realize here, is that God does His work "through" human agency.

[kat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Excuse me? It wasn't originally written in English either now was it? And, I suppose since it's possible to call the whole thing up on my computer screen, instead of the original parchment, then that would invalidate it too?

I think the thing that people fail to realize here, is that God does His work "through" human agency.

*Boggle* Mr. Iacchus, there's no comparison with a translation which by all rights and reason SHOULD (although in reality it doesn't) give the same information as the original text did at the time of writing with your "prophesy" that did not exist PRIOR to the mid 1500's.
Nor is there a comparison with what the words which by all rights and reason should (although in reality the DON'T) offer the same stories and information as they did in the original text with YOUR 'prophesy' that did not exist, could not exist, because it was not written! prior to the 1500's. SO in essence what you are saying that YOU believe God did his work through Stephen Langton and Robert Estienne in the 12th and 16th centuries? and to that I would say is your name..by any chance..Joseph Smith Jr.?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kat
*Boggle* Mr. Iacchus, there's no comparison with a translation which by all rights and reason SHOULD (although in reality it doesn't) give the same information as the original text did at the time of writing with your "prophesy" that did not exist PRIOR to the mid 1500's.
Nor is there a comparison with what the words which by all rights and reason should (although in reality the DON'T) offer the same stories and information as they did in the original text with YOUR 'prophesy' that did not exist, could not exist, because it was not written! prior to the 1500's. SO in essence what you are saying that YOU believe God did his work through Stephen Langton and Robert Estienne in the 12th and 16th centuries? and to that I would say is your name..by any chance..Joseph Smith Jr.? And yet this is the way it's been passed down, and is the material which has been "etched" into everyone's brains. So this does have a lot to do with it believe it or not -- you know, you work with what you got? Besides, it's the Holy Spirit which teaches us, not the words in a book.

It's like I said, people fail to realize that God has His hand in everything, which is why they so often miss the boat.

Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:4-5).
How can you argue with that? Besides, I haven't really prophesized anything, just drawn up some correlations -- or, "evidence" if you will -- suggesting the possibility of God's hand at work. Am sorry people are unwilling to make the connection.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's like I said, people fail to realize that God has His hand in everything, which is why they so often miss the boat.


so why only the Bible is His words? why can't you accept all the books as God's words?

[Laser Eyes]

so why only the Bible is His words? why can't you accept all the books as God's words?Here's why:

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Shouldn't that be one of the last verses in the Bible? After all how can you tell if something written after Deuteronomy was added with God's explicit permission or not? You just show up and say "Hi, I'm Jeremiah and I have a new book to add to the Bible"...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
so why only the Bible is His words? why can't you accept all the books as God's words? Well, perhaps for the same reason He ordained Jeremiah? While I'm sure there are other books you can read, it's just that this is the one that's been handed down over the millenia and is closest to "the source."

[Guybrush Threepwood]

What source would that be?
Please read this article (http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/bible01.htm) and tell me your opinion... Did all the people who modified the bible in some way were God inspired? How can you be sure?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
What source would that be?
Please read this article (http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/bible01.htm) and tell me your opinion... Did all the people who modified the bible in some way were God inspired? How can you be sure? What are you suggesting that the Bible isn't complete? I believe that's possible. Whereas even if a lot of people had a hand in its creation, they would seem to be speaking about the same phenomenon here. And even if there were some who weren't credible, it no doubt would have been best for them keep their facts straight, otherwise suffer a lose in reputation.

Why should it be any different than any other profession?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are suggesting that the Bible isn't complete?

I'm suggesting that you should tell us exactly which Bible is the word of God? I think this is an important question. Please try not to avoid it. I'm looking for an answer like: "The KJV is the true bible..." or whatever you think here but don't divert this by another unrelated question. And an argument why the other versions are not God's words would be greatly appreciated.

From the article:

The total number of Catholic Old Testament books is 46 (or 45 if we combine Jeremiah and Lamentation) while that of Protestant is 39.

seems to me that either the Catholics or the Protestants broke that Deuteronomy 4.2 copyright notice from God. Who has the true word of God?
not to mention the Funding Fathers of the church (paragraph 4 from the article) who had each one a different list of books and didn't care to much about lose of reputation to make a common one.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
I'm suggesting that you should tell us exactly which Bible is the word of God? I think this is an important question. Please try not to avoid it. I'm looking for an answer like: "The KJV is the true bible..." or whatever you think here but don't divert this by another unrelated question. And an argument why the other versions are not God's words would be greatly appreciated. I think that the Bible is a very useful tool, and I prefer to use the King James version myself, as I don't believe it's been "adulterated" as much as some of the more recent versions. Besides, I never really did say the Bible was the word of God, although I have "alluded" to it as such. You can take this to mean that I don't go around "preaching" verse and chapter to other people.


seems to me that either the Catholics or the Protestants broke that Deuteronomy 4.2 copyright notice from God. Who has the true word of God?
not to mention the Funding Fathers of the church (paragraph 4 from the article) who had each one a different list of books and didn't care to much about lose of reputation to make a common one. The true word of God is written in our hearts. So in this sense I think the Bible is very useful in helping us find that out.


But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:33-34).

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The true word of God is written in our hearts.

I guess this is the only point in which I agree with you...[:)]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
... I think the Bible is very useful in helping us find that out.

but I think you're making a big mistake here. Although the Bible has a few good advices there are also many bad parts in it. I would use a psychology book instead.
Well, till tommorow....

[Laser Eyes]

Shouldn't that be one of the last verses in the Bible? After all how can you tell if something written after Deuteronomy was added with God's explicit permission or not? You just show up and say "Hi, I'm Jeremiah and I have a new book to add to the Bible"...I don't know that I can give you an answer that will satisfy you on this point. You have to remember that at all times God was in control of what was included in the Bible. At some stage the Bible writings became recognised as inspired writings and were included as part of the scriptures. This would not have happened unless intended by God.

You can take this to mean that I don't go around "preaching" verse and chapter to other people.

The true word of God is written in our hearts.Iacchus32, that is straight out of the Bible:

"I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts." - Jeremiah 31:33

You're preaching from the Bible without knowing it!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I don't know that I can give you an answer that will satisfy you on this point. You have to remember that at all times God was in control of what was included in the Bible. At some stage the Bible writings became recognised as inspired writings and were included as part of the scriptures. This would not have happened unless intended by God.

Iacchus32, that is straight out of the Bible:

"I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts." - Jeremiah 31:33

You're preaching from the Bible without knowing it! Yes, this is the verse that I quoted above. And yet it's also the one that says it's no longer necessary. And neither do I make a habit out of it either. [;)]

[megashawn]

hah, 7 pages and still no proof.

wow.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
You have to remember that at all times God was in control of what was included in the Bible. At some stage the Bible writings became recognised as inspired writings and were included as part of the scriptures. This would not have happened unless intended by God.


lacchus at least said what Bible he uses.
please answer the same question and tell me what Bible was controlled by God? why did He add more stuff for the Catholics? The Protestants were bad boys or something? Why would he control only the Bible and leave the other books uninspired?

I think you have to touch this subjects too if you intend to prove that the Bible is god's words. I mean why is the Bible so important to deserve His attention? It's the history of the Jews - ok. The story of Christ and his followers - ok. But couldn't be written by men alone? Why did it need a divine intervention?

So far the conclusion is the one written by megashawn...

[Laser Eyes]

lacchus at least said what Bible he uses.
please answer the same question and tell me what Bible was controlled by God? why did He add more stuff for the Catholics? The Protestants were bad boys or something?I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There is only one Bible. What do you mean which one? Can you be a bit more specific please.

Why would he control only the Bible and leave the other books uninspired?

I think you have to touch this subjects too if you intend to prove that the Bible is god's words. I mean why is the Bible so important to deserve His attention? It's the history of the Jews - ok. The story of Christ and his followers - ok. But couldn't be written by men alone? Why did it need a divine intervention?I think what you are saying here is based on a misconception. The Bible was not some person's idea that God decided to give his attention to or intervene in. The Bible was God's idea from the beginning, written by men who wrote under God's inspiration. Everything in the Bible, from the history to the prophecy to the wisdom is there because God wants it there. He gave us his Word to guide us and to teach us the truth. Of course there are other books written by men that claim some sort of divine authority, but they are not God's concern. So what if men wrote other books? Is God obliged to interfere in the writing of every book that falsely claims divine authority? That would be contrary to the general "hands-off" policy that God has adopted. Satan and his minions can have their way for the time being but that that time is rapidly coming to an end.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There is only one Bible. What do you mean which one? Can you be a bit more specific please.


at the begining of page 7 in this thread I gave a link. read what's there and you'll understand my question.

He gave us his Word to guide us and to teach us the truth
In Bible the value of pi is 3 and the sky separates the waters below from the waters above. Is that the truth?

Satan and his minions can have their way for the time being but that that time is rapidly coming to an end.
what are this guys doing in this thread??? [g)] [g)]

[Zero]

WHat is funny is people making statements about the Bible, based solely on the Bible. This sort of circular reasoning leads absolutely nowhere. "The Bible is true, because in the Bible it says that the Bible is true." There is no other evidence that the Bible is true, except that claim. It is just another holy book written by men, inspired by...guess who?...men, of course! There is no evidence, and no need, for any God or Gods to be involved. In fact, a logical reading of any holy book leads to the same conclusion: it is a bunch of fables mixed in with the traditions andf history of the local tribe.
[g)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I don't know that I can give you an answer that will satisfy you on this point. You have to remember that at all times God was in control of what was included in the Bible. At some stage the Bible writings became recognised as inspired writings and were included as part of the scriptures. This would not have happened unless intended by God.



This makes little if no sense. The God of the Bible creates the universe, but has to write a book through ghostwriters?

Then again, teh poor guy got tired after making everything, and needed a NAP!! What kind of *expletive deleted* poor excuse for a deity is that?!?

[Laser Eyes]

what are this guys doing in this thread??? I only mentioned them because you asked about these "other books" and why God didn't intervene in them as well as the Bible. The Bible says that Satan is the God of this world. All the false religions and books other than the Bible that claim to have divine authority were created by Satan to deceive people and prevent them from learning the truth. I'll get back to you about the other stuff.

[megashawn]

So is satan also responsible for all these damn dinosaur bones we keep finding? The supposive flaw in Carbon dating? Hiding evidence of a global flood. Also, is Satan responsible for writing the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is much older then the bible, but shares so much?

I mean, after we get done with satan tricking us, what else do you have?

And if satan is tricking us, he's doing a damn good job. Is god leaving us on our own, having to figure out what is true, when all the supposive tricks appear true? This does not sound like an all loving person to me.

Which goes back to the bible being full of lies.

[Laser Eyes]

So is satan also responsible for all these damn dinosaur bones we keep finding?No, of course not.

Also, is Satan responsible for writing the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is much older then the bible, but shares so much?Yes.

I mean, after we get done with satan tricking us, what else do you have?The truth.

And if satan is tricking us, he's doing a damn good job.Yes he is, but I think he finds some people easier to trick than others.

Is god leaving us on our own, having to figure out what is true, when all the supposive tricks appear true?Yes, God is leaving us mostly on our own, although not completely, because he has given us the Bible. If you want to know why he is leaving us on our own see what I said in the thread "Why does God allow evil?"
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=829

[megashawn]

OK, so what now? God's millions of spirit beings have witnessed this incident. The rebellious angel has accused God of being a lier. He has questioned God's right to rule. That has never happened before. Also, the first man chose to disobey God and has been cut off from God. What can be done? Well God could very easily destroy the rebellious angel. But would that solve the problem? After all God's power was never called into question. How can God prove that he is not a lier? Does he even need to prove it? The millions of angels are intelligent beings but they are not Gods. They can not see where the ripples will end. Only God knows for sure what will happen. What would the other angels think if God simply destroyed the dissenting voice? Might they start to wonder if God is trying to hide something? An issue has arisen that needs to be settled. The consequences of disobedience have to be seen.

While I've got some problems with your butchering this story in the earlier paragraphs, this is down right rediculous. Where is this story found in the bible?

And also, the consequences of disobedience is death, suffering, disease, etc? Forever? I mean, I've always heard preachers using the example of teaching a puppy to go outside to releive himself. But regardless of how many times the puppy does the doo in the house, you never tie it up out back, leaving it to its own devices, limited by the rope, and watch it from a tinted window in your house. With the millions of spirit beings (that also seems to lack any biblical backing) it sounds more like a spectator sport, like pro wrestling.

How did I miss that thread, expect a post sooner or later.

Because of the genetic defect that has been passed on to us from the first man and woman we have an inclination to do bad. We have to struggle against our wrong inclinations.

Well here you have it. With the DNA map of the human body complete, it should just be a lil bit of research and number crunching and you'd have a strong peace of evidence for your god. But then again, a genetic defect that causes certain individuals to go nuts, start killing ppls or whatever other sinful activity you can think of, is easily thought of as perhaps a not so evolved animal, not ready to survive in modern society.

Hah, theres a project for ya. Next figuring out if it affects the majority of the world. You could start taking DNA samples with the tithing.


Yes he is, but I think he finds some people easier to trick than others.

Ouch. But are you so sure your not the one being tricked, and what reasons can you provide that I should believe your thoughts, as opposed to my own or others whom I can relate?

In other words, here it goes again, what good reason can you provide that the bible, or Christianity, is the absolute truth? What evidence can you provide to discount all the other religions as false, and of the devil? Surely god would have provided us atleast with a method of examing religions and identify the fakes.

How can the epic be of satans authoring, when it is older then most christians believe the earth to have existed?

And you said no to my question about dino bones. Why is there no record about them in the bible, which is supposed to be an acount for creation? How did a species that dominated this planet for millions of years not get a single mention?

That above paragraph, to me, works hard on what little credibility could be found in the bible.

And lets not even talk about rediculous claims of age, 500, 600, 900 years old. No chance of any evidence to back that claim up. Especially since reality shows that life expectancy is higher then ever.

And one more thing. You suggested that god was a source of life for adam, while in the garden. What would you think of technology to provide this same effect? Would we be capable of rivaling god? If you can provide any compelling evidence, I'll start working on the design so we can bring down the gates of heaven????

[:D]

(anyone else have trouble with the devil icon? [<:)] )

[ray b]

a perfect book written by god NOWAY
just an other work of semi-fiction BY MAN

JC's name wasnot Jesus it was ya-sho-wa modern joshua but the angel told mary to call him emmanuel, but she didnot.
anyway the name jesus is just a tranlation error, when the bible was translated from greek to latin they blew his name!!!!! nobody was called jesus but thats the name they pray to in hope of salvation, so thats a major clue the religion is false or what???
where was the holy spirit , was he asleep durring the tranlation ???
or did GOD just forget his KIDS name???

btw JC called himself the son of man NOT son of god or christ

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I only mentioned them because you asked about these "other books" and why God didn't intervene in them as well as the Bible.

Well I was thinking about the real books, like those about science, Shakespeare, S.T. Coleridge, Tolkein, whatever you want else, not religious books.....

The Bible says that Satan is the God of this world.

Please offer some exact Bible verse that says that!!!!! Or even mentions the name Satan.

[Laser Eyes]

While I've got some problems with your butchering this story in the earlier paragraphs, this is down right rediculous. Where is this story found in the bible?I could tell you but what's the point? You don't believe the Bible is God's word anyway. You have made that abundantly clear. In fact you don't even believe there is a God. You said on page 2 of this thread that "god is imaginary". So whether the story you have quoted is in the Bible or not what do you care? If you really don't believe the Bible is God's word then it shouldn't make any difference to you whether it's in the Bible or not. I find it quite amazing that someone who says the Bible is just another book written by men and also says that God is something created from man's imagination, would then say "Show me where that story is in the Bible".

Well here you have it. With the DNA map of the human body complete, it should just be a lil bit of research and number crunching and you'd have a strong peace of evidence for your god.Perhaps not as simple as all that. After all we have no perfect specimen to which to compare our DNA. The genetically perfect human does not exist.

But then again, a genetic defect that causes certain individuals to go nuts, start killing ppls or whatever other sinful activity you can think of, is easily thought of as perhaps a not so evolved animal, not ready to survive in modern society.This is not the first time that you have misstated what I have said. I didn't say that our genetic defect causes killing etc... I said that we are inclined to do bad things. We still have free will and great power to choose what we will do. We don't have to give in to our impulses.

In other words, here it goes again, what good reason can you provide that the bible, or Christianity, is the absolute truth? What evidence can you provide to discount all the other religions as false, and of the devil?Well I can't make God appear as if pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It's just my opinion but frankly I don't think anyone has made a dent in the arguments I presented at the beginning of this thread if you consider them all together.
How can the epic be of satans authoring, when it is older then most christians believe the earth to have existed?The earth has existed for millions of years, obviously longer that the Gilgamesh story.

And you said no to my question about dino bones. Why is there no record about them in the bible, which is supposed to be an acount for creation? How did a species that dominated this planet for millions of years not get a single mention?It's a fair question I suppose. The Bible does not purport to be a comprehensive record of every single thing that has ever happened. You could fill a library with the history of the universe. Would it help you if God had told you in the Bible why he created dinosaurs? Do you really need to know?

And lets not even talk about rediculous claims of age, 500, 600, 900 years old. No chance of any evidence to back that claim up. Especially since reality shows that life expectancy is higher then ever.OK, we won't talk about it.

And one more thing. You suggested that god was a source of life for adam, while in the garden. What would you think of technology to provide this same effect? Would we be capable of rivaling god? If you can provide any compelling evidence, I'll start working on the design so we can bring down the gates of heaven????People have been trying to discover the elixir of life for thousands of years. There are entire industries devoted to extending life, or at least the appearance of youth. Isn't that what cosmetics and pharmaceutical companies do? And don't they all fail in the end?

Please offer some exact Bible verse that says that!!!!! Or even mentions the name Satan.Ask (nicely) and you shall receive:

"Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." - John 12:31

"of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged." - John 16:11

"We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one." - 1 John 5:19

"whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." - 2 Corinthians 4:4

"So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth and his angels were cast out with him." - Revelation 12:9

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I could tell you but what's the point? You don't believe the Bible is God's word anyway.

well the thread title says that you offer proof that the Bible is God's word. If you can prove to us (me, megashawn, Zero, ...), I guess you can prove to anybody. So that would be the point [:)].


Ask (nicely) and you shall receive:

I did say please...

You see, what you are really saying when you say that the Bible is God's words, is not only God exists, but that he did let some physical evidence for us humans. But when I read the Bible I see no evidence, just bloody stories from jewish history, some legends about various persons, prophecies full of anger about the coming of Christ, facts that the science has rejected, and some laws and moral advices. If there is a God who created this entire universe I guess I'm expecting more of him than some inconsistent stories. As for Satan if he wants to deceive humans and prevent us from learning the truth, I guess he's just some pathetic, stupid person (angel, whatever) with no personal life and really in need of some profesional psychiatric help...

[Laser Eyes]

well the thread title says that you offer proof that the Bible is God's word. If you can prove to us (me, megashawn, Zero, ...), I guess you can prove to anybody. So that would be the point.I offered what I considered reasonable arguments at the beginning of this thread. Taken together I believe they ought to be enough for any honest hearted person who doesn't believe the Bible is God's word to at least start wondering and questioning their beliefs. Those arguments are the best I can do. I have nothing more to offer. They can be expanded and written about in much greater detail but they are the essential arguments that prove the Bible is God's word. From what he has posted here it is apparent that megashawn has rejected those arguments. OK that's fine but what is the point of me explaining other concepts from the Bible to someone who believes the Bible is just another book written by men? If the arguments that I presented in the beginning aren't enough for you then nothing will be.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I offered what I considered reasonable arguments at the beginning of this thread. Taken together I believe they ought to be enough for any honest hearted person who doesn't believe the Bible is God's word to at least start wondering and questioning their beliefs. Those arguments are the best I can do. I have nothing more to offer. They can be expanded and written about in much greater detail but they are the essential arguments that prove the Bible is God's word. From what he has posted here it is apparent that megashawn has rejected those arguments. OK that's fine but what is the point of me explaining other concepts from the Bible to someone who believes the Bible is just another book written by men? If the arguments that I presented in the beginning aren't enough for you then nothing will be.

Then, maybe, we should start over, with your original posts, and take those points one at a time? Maybe expand on those, since they seem to have been dropped in favor of the never-popular 'but, darning, it says so in the Bible!' argument.

[Netme]

If the "bible" would just be called what it is - true stories about life and god ignored there would be many more "saved" people than there are now.

[Tsu]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, so what now? God's millions of spirit beings have witnessed this incident. The rebellious angel has accused God of being a lier. He has questioned God's right to rule. That has never happened before. Also, the first man chose to disobey God and has been cut off from God. What can be done? Well God could very easily destroy the rebellious angel. But would that solve the problem? After all God's power was never called into question. How can God prove that he is not a lier? Does he even need to prove it? The millions of angels are intelligent beings but they are not Gods. They can not see where the ripples will end. Only God knows for sure what will happen. What would the other angels think if God simply destroyed the dissenting voice? Might they start to wonder if God is trying to hide something? An issue has arisen that needs to be settled. The consequences of disobedience have to be seen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could someone tell me who said this? I just started reading this thread and -- did I miss a page? I can't seem to find this anywhere except megashawns post. I have been studying the bible off and on for years, and, while I tend to believe that most of it is the inspired word of God, I find the inconsistancies and metaphors obstructive at best. This 'story' sound to me like arguments used by some Adventist friends of mine from years ago. I, too, would like to know:

Originally posted by megashawn
Where is this story found in the bible?

[KillaMarcilla]

You see, what you are really saying when you say that the Bible is God's words, is not only God exists, but that he did let some physical evidence for us humans. But when I read the Bible I see no evidence, just bloody stories from jewish history, some legends about various persons, prophecies full of anger about the coming of Christ, facts that the science has rejected, and some laws and moral advices. If there is a God who created this entire universe I guess I'm expecting more of him than some inconsistent stories. As for Satan if he wants to deceive humans and prevent us from learning the truth, I guess he's just some pathetic, stupid person (angel, whatever) with no personal life and really in need of some profesional psychiatric help...

Man, that makes the Bible sound almost embarassingly bad.. like if God ever showed up and we said "Hey, we got your book!" he'd see the nonsensical rambling scribbles and be disgusted, but humor our pathetic efforts

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I offered what I considered reasonable arguments at the beginning of this thread. Taken together I believe they ought to be enough for any honest hearted person who doesn't believe the Bible is God's word to at least start wondering and questioning their beliefs. Those arguments are the best I can do. I have nothing more to offer. They can be expanded and written about in much greater detail but they are the essential arguments that prove the Bible is God's word. From what he has posted here it is apparent that megashawn has rejected those arguments. OK that's fine but what is the point of me explaining other concepts from the Bible to someone who believes the Bible is just another book written by men? If the arguments that I presented in the beginning aren't enough for you then nothing will be.

Laser Eyes, have I, at any time, given you the impression that I haven't taken everything you said seriously and with full consideration to it's implications? Have I given you any reason, short of not agreeing with you, that I am less than honest?

I can understand that you see things differently, but I have a hard time when you start to imply that I and all that disagree with you are being intellectually dishonest.

The arguments you made had a number of flaws, from the point of view of a non-believer being convinced. In other words, from a non-believers point of view, they were not reasonable. If a person already believed in the bible, then I am sure they would be very compelling, but they were not ideas I find either compelling, nor even a little persuasive. No insult intended.

Most of those here that have lost our christian beliefs, have done quite a bit of religious searching and sole searching. Nothing you have said is anything that we haven't heard, a number of times, before.

I keep a fairly strict set of ethics in my behaviour and actions. Honesty is high on that list. Just because you do not understand why I don't accept things you consider as proof does not give you the right to question my, and my fellow posters, honesty. If your beliefs are such that considering me both honest and an aware no-christian threatens your faith, please do not voice this - in that it is a fairly serious insult to question another's honesty in public.

I do not think you intended to insult me or the others who disagree with you, but it is the meaning of the words that you chose.

I respect that you believe differently, please respect that my beliefs (or lack thereof) are different from yours.

[megashawn]

Could someone tell me who said this? I just started reading this thread and -- did I miss a page?

What you quoted was a response to something laser eyes linked to, at this thread http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=829

Check a couple of posts above the one in question and you'll see the link and relevance.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by megashawn
What you quoted was a response to something laser eyes linked to, at this thread http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=829

Check a couple of posts above the one in question and you'll see the link and relevance.

After looking thru this one for it, I tho't it might be in that thread so I looked thru it, also. Must have been so tired I missed it there, too. But now I've discovered ANOTHER thread I have to read!(You guys have me HOOKED on this forum and I'm staying up WAY too late these days!) SORRY!

I guess I'm still waiting for an answer? Or is Laser Eyes still looking in the bible for that story?

[megashawn]

You guys have me HOOKED on this forum and I'm staying up WAY too late these days!) SORRY!

It has a tendancy to do that to ya. I've been hooked for a lil over a year myself.

[megashawn]

In fact you don't even believe there is a God. You said on page 2 of this thread that "god is imaginary".

I've never said I don't believe a God exists. Infact, many times I've said just that, I do not have enough information to make a decision as to whether or not a god exists.

On the other hand, I believe any god you could possibly want exists in the imagination. So yes, in an imaginary world, there is no question a god could exist.


I find it quite amazing that someone who says the Bible is just another book written by men and also says that God is something created from man's imagination, would then say "Show me where that story is in the Bible".

Hey now, that request was not for my benefit alone. I'm sure any christian believer would love to read that story for themselves. Unfortunately it doesn't exist, as it was something made up to try to help your arguement.

This is not the first time that you have misstated what I have said. I didn't say that our genetic defect causes killing etc... I said that we are inclined to do bad things. We still have free will and great power to choose what we will do. We don't have to give in to our impulses.

And this is not the first time you've taken things to seriously, and also skipped the rest of the sentance. Did you happen to notice the nine words after what inspired your comments?

or whatever other sinful activity you can think of

Now just what exactly do you think I mean by that?

It's a fair question I suppose. The Bible does not purport to be a comprehensive record of every single thing that has ever happened. You could fill a library with the history of the universe. Would it help you if God had told you in the Bible why he created dinosaurs? Do you really need to know?

But people who support creationism would have creation science taught in place of real science, and people would never learn about dinosaurs until they were already brainwashed. The bible claims to be an account of creation. It starts at the universe, then earth, sun & moon, then the stars, then plants, then animals, then people.

There is not a man or woman who could be considered sane that would deny dinosaurs existance. To me, the mere fact that there is no mention of these animals at some step in the creation process shows that the biblical creation story is rubbish.

And before you tell me that dinosaurs were included in the lines about creating the beasts, remember that god also told man he'd have dominion over all the beasts. Now, looking at it realistically, who has dominion, a man and a stick, or a raptor?

OK, we won't talk about it

I was joking, I'd love some kind of evidence to support this. Got any?

You see Laser Eyes, as I said earlier, I have no clue about pretty much anything, aside from going to work, paying my bills, riding my bike and playing my games. I don't know if there is some all mighty being pushing the buttons. I have an interest in this stuff because I really would like to see some evidence on the matter, that would perhaps verify the claim of one of the millions of religions (joking again, don't take my number serious and dedicate a paragraph to it).

[Laser Eyes]

Radagast, you ceratainly haven't said anything that suggests you have been less than honest at all. The post I think you are complaining about was in response to a post by megashawn. If he or anyone else is offended by what I posted above then I apologise. Looking back at my post above it is not the way I usually deal with things. I think I was in a bad mood at the time and just being argumentative. What I said wasn't meant to question anyone's honesty. I do respect others' beliefs but like everone I could probably be better at it. Like I said, I was just looking for an argument. I think it's possible to be too logical at times.

It's a good point about looking at the arguments from a non-believer's point of view. I really hadn't looked at them like that and it's a little difficult for me to do now. The arguments probably wouldn't have convinced me of anything either when I was an atheist.

I guess I'm still waiting for an answer? Or is Laser Eyes still looking in the bible for that story?That story is drawn from several different Bible themes and from many scriptures spread throughout the Bible. It would take me some time to prepare a post that properly explained where all the scriptures are and how they relate to the story. It's more time than I have right now so it will have to wait.

[megashawn]

The post I think you are complaining about was in response to a post by megashawn.

Ya, didn't you know? You don't have to be nice when replying to me.

[:)]

j/k of course (I hope [?] )


The arguments probably wouldn't have convinced me of anything either when I was an atheist.

Well, what exactly was it, that finally did convince you?

[Tsu]

My post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I'm still waiting for an answer? Or is Laser Eyes still looking in the bible for that story?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
That story is drawn from several different Bible themes and from many scriptures spread throughout the Bible. It would take me some time to prepare a post that properly explained where all the scriptures are and how they relate to the story. It's more time than I have right now so it will have to wait.

Thank you, Laser Eyes. That is pretty much the same answer that I got from my friends years ago - I just wanted to make sure that...well, I guess I don't really KNOW what I wanted to make sure of. I'm just as confused by the bible as anyone else, and I'm just trying to learn. Please don't feel like you have to pull all this infor together just for for me - just keep going in this thread. You aren't just dealing with skeptics and total atheists here, you know! :-) Some of us Christians need lots of help with this stuff!

I realized years ago that I'd been sitting on the fence most of my life in regards to religion & Christianity, and it was time to get the heck OFF of the fence! No other conscious decision 'felt' right to me (atheism, eastern religions, Judaism)but I really felt compelled to make up my mind, and then, one day, I had a very moving spiritual experience and I realized that I had just MADE my decision. Now I'm just trying to live it, and understand... why I made the decision I did? (I guess? or something...) I have numerous 'fundamentalist' friends, but I surely didn't have the life-changing spiritual event that turned these people's lives around completely. They have become 'bible literalists' (is this the proper term?) – they take the words of the bible and try to live them literally – live as Jesus would have lived - whereas, I am still the same person, with the same life...I just have a different way of looking at life and the world in general. I believe I've become a much better person through this conscious decision, but I haven’t become a ‘crusader’, trying to force people around to my point of view by telling them, that because they don’t believe like me, THEY ARE GOING TO HELL!!! I guess that’s the problem that I have with someone trying to convince me so hard of ‘what’ the bible ‘says’. They always try to tell me I’m not a TRUE Christian because I don’t believe that THIS is the correct way to interpret this passage…blah blah blah… But you know what? These very people do not act in a very Christian-like manner towards ‘outsiders’ in their churches. I must say that I have found more ‘Christian’ attitudes outside churches than inside them. Why is that?

(don’t know why I told you all that! sorry...I digress)

Ultimately, you have to admit, the bible is a pretty tough read for anyone! It is said you can find anything in the bible to support almost any action that you choose to take in any given situation. I believe this to be true.

[Laser Eyes]

Well, what exactly was it, that finally did convince you?Well first off let me tell you that I was the king of all atheists. Whenever some religious nut needed putting down I got sent into action. There's nothing worse than a smart *** with brains. If I was passing someone preaching in the street I always went over to them to have some fun and show them how much smarter I was. Or if someone knocked on my door and tried talking about God boy did they ever get it. They couldn't leave fast enough. Here is a typical conversation between me, the King Atheist (KA) and the Religious Nut (RN):

KA: Hi, what's this about?

RN: I'm talking to people about the Bible and Jesus Christ. Did you know that Jesus died for you?

KA: Did I ask him to?

RN: Well Jesus died for all sinners because he loved them.

KA: Look pal, I don't believe there is a God. If there was a God he would have told us that he exists.

RN: God did tell us he exists. He gave us the Bible and that tells us many things about him.

KA: THE BIBLE! That's just a book written by men.

RN: Can I just show you where it says ...

KA: I'm not interested what it says in there. A book doesn't prove a thing.

RN: But the Bible is God's word. The writings are inspired by God himself.

KA: I just told you I don't believe there is a God. If you want me to believe in God then make him appear right now.

RN: It doesn't work like that.

KA: Hey if God wants me to believe in him then why wouldn't he appear? That's all I need, just make him appear RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. If he does that then I'll believe there's a God. If he wants me to believe in him then he'd do it.

RN: God created you and all the world around you. How do you think you got here?

KA: Well I don't know about you but my parents created me.

RN: Did they create the earth too?

KA: Hey pal, are you trying to be smart with me? Haven't you ever heard of evolution and the Big Bang?

RN: But how did life begin.

KA: With a BIG BANG. I just told you that. What are you deaf?

RN: I probably can't help you but it was nice talking to you.

KA: (walking away) You can't help anyone pal including yourself.

So how did the king of all atheists do an about turn? It was as simple as this. One day I decided to open my mind to the possibility that God exists. That's it. That's all it took. The moment I did that I knew that there was a God. Absolute certainty. Nothing supernatural, nothing spiritual about it. I didn't change my mind based on this argument or that argument. No-one else was involved. All that happened was I was willing to accept the possibility that I might be wrong, just the possibility mind you, nothing more than that. But I completely opened my mind, no holding on to anything that went before. I was willing to believe there was a God and deal with whatever consequences there might be. I think I did it because I realised that I had been believing there was no God based on nothing. I had never proven to myself that there was no God and no-one else had proven it to me. I had adopted atheism out of convenience. It was probably one of the more humble things I've done.

People come to know God in different ways. The usual way is through study of the Bible and pondering on what it says. Eventually people realise that God is there. What happened for me is not the usual way.

[Zero]

Sad, how the 'king' has fallen. You were right the first time, and if you had been in a predominantly Hindo, Muslim, or Buddhist country, that is what you would have converted to. [;)]

Don't take this the wrong way, but were you in AA, rehab, or prison, or had you suffered a recent trauma?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
So how did the king of all atheists do an about turn? It was as simple as this. One day I decided to open my mind to the possibility that God exists. That's it. That's all it took. The moment I did that I knew that there was a God. Absolute certainty. Nothing supernatural, nothing spiritual about it. I didn't change my mind based on this argument or that argument. No-one else was involved. All that happened was I was willing to accept the possibility that I might be wrong, just the possibility mind you, nothing more than that. But I completely opened my mind, no holding on to anything that went before. I was willing to believe there was a God and deal with whatever consequences there might be. I think I did it because I realised that I had been believing there was no God based on nothing. I had never proven to myself that there was no God and no-one else had proven it to me. I had adopted atheism out of convenience. It was probably one of the more humble things I've done. That's a very good story, and that's about what it takes too. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Don't ASK me how that got in there twice... I haven't a clue. But I'm quite certain it was operator error, somehow.[;)] If you would like to delete a post, just click on "edit" in the bottom right-hand corner of the post, and when the screen opens up go up to the top and select the delete "box" on the left and click on the delete "button" on the right, and that should take care of it. [:)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Radagast, you ceratainly haven't said anything that suggests you have been less than honest at all. ...

I appreciate the apology. After I posted I realized you probably were more targetted at a particular person than all who disagreed with you.


It's a good point about looking at the arguments from a non-believer's point of view. I really hadn't looked at them like that and it's a little difficult for me to do now. The arguments probably wouldn't have convinced me of anything either when I was an atheist.


Seeing another's POV is always difficult. When religious folk come to the door, I always invite them in to discuss religion. Not to have an argument, but to see what they believe. I hope to always challenge the way I think and make sure I keep my mind open and thinking. Though I don't hide that I don't share their beliefs, I also don't try to make it an issue. I have been quite amazed that most are not the stereotypical, closed minded, religious types, but can see that others can have a valid, but differing point of view.

[megashawn]

Well first off let me tell you that I was the king of all atheists.

Seems like rather weak arguements coming from a king of atheists.

I've never shutdown the possibility of a god. I just truly believe that the god of the bible cannot be responsible for this life, with the claims made about him/nature. Then the contradictions, atrocities, etc, make my stomach turn to be honest.

When I say something like, "God should just show himself" it doesn't have to be a physical appearance. If god is so powerfull, and is everywhere, why can't he whisper the same thing in everyones ear?