Why do you believe what you believe

[souloe]

Mr.Ownage

I don't believe in God simply because I have been given no real reason too. If someone can show me proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, I may change my mind. I looked at the link on the first page, and saw nothing at all supporting the existence of this all-powerful creator.

when you look at a car, would you think... "wow that's such an awesome car. It must have somehow came together by chance and pieced itself into what it is". Or maybe a computer "wow that's such a nice computer. It must have somehow came together by chance and pieced itself into what it is"

personally, I would think they have some designer and likewise, your own body - regardless of the respiratory system, circulatory system and so on - are much more complex that cars or computers. I would think there is a designer. And the universe itself too. personally, I'd say there is a designer. Unless I believed it came together by random which, for me, is actually harder to believe.  

[Aeloria]

I believe in God because I want to. Since there's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a being that transcends the universe, it all just depends on what you want to believe.

I'm really into the sciences; particularly stuff like quantum and theoretical physics. I think evolution may or may not have been the method in which life advanced. What would stop God from using evolution as the means of creating life? Since the universe is scientific, why would God randomly decide to defy the science he created and just make people appear instantly out of nowhere? But the only problems I have with evolution are that while micro-evolution has been directly observed (evolution within a species), macro-evolution has not been directly observed (evolution where one species evolves into another species.) If it hasn't been directly observed, it is only speculation, even if the speculation is comprised entirely of scientific concepts.

Also, the other problem I have with evolution -- well, not exactly evolution, but the beginning of all Earth-based life; there are theories about how a living cell could become constructed from non-living matter out of random chance, but all laboratory experiments to recreate these phenomenons have ended in uncircumventable failure.

Anyway, I believe in a good God. I can't see how a God who created such beautiful things could toss people into an oversized Crock Pot for all eternity. Of course I don't know if God exists or not, but I hope he/she does. And if there is no God, it doesn't matter if I believe in one or not.

I don't think it hurts to believe in a God, as long as you don't stop looking for the truth yourself.

:p
*Lengthy first guild post*  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

it's not just 5 sources, it's 5 sources with credibility. If you want hard evidence, it would require either you trusting me to, or you yourself doing so, going to the Grand Canyon, extracting some samples, and conducting the tests personally. Now, I dunno about you, but I can't really spare a week to go off and do so, and I'm sure you probably don't have that kind of time either.

What I gave was indeed a logical deduction, and a number of those at that. Using credible sources (five at that, which is indeed quite a number) is a universally accepted method for presenting evidence. If you can find credible sources saying otherwise (about the Grand Canyon, I mean), by all means do so.

If something else did occur, there would be definite evidence of it. So far, we have yet to find any evidence suggesting anything other than a river's flow creating the canyon. What "more" than rains are you thinking of? A meteor shower would have left impact craters and meteorites for us to find. An earthquake, even a massive one, would have left rifts other than the ones that follow the river's path, and yet we see nothing. I would say that this would qualify as another logical deduction, but if you see a flaw in my logic, please point it out.  

[R i o k u]

souloe

Mr.Ownage

I don't believe in God simply because I have been given no real reason too. If someone can show me proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, I may change my mind. I looked at the link on the first page, and saw nothing at all supporting the existence of this all-powerful creator.

when you look at a car, would you think... "wow that's such an awesome car. It must have somehow came together by chance and pieced itself into what it is". Or maybe a computer "wow that's such a nice computer. It must have somehow came together by chance and pieced itself into what it is"

personally, I would think they have some designer and likewise, your own body - regardless of the respiratory system, circulatory system and so on - are much more complex that cars or computers. I would think there is a designer. And the universe itself too. personally, I'd say there is a designer. Unless I believed it came together by random which, for me, is actually harder to believe.

Wow, that is probably one of the worst uses of human logic I think I have ever come across.

Because looking at technological devices and pondering how they became... that way will lead to the question of a higher power. Just because something has been crafted by us, doesn't mean EVERYTHING has to have a crafter.

You are a christian, you know better than anyone else that not everything that has a beginning. Oh, I don't know, in my 14 or so years if school taught religion, I always heard that God was always and will always be. Maybe they do things differently in your (sect?) of christianity.

Ok, you are denying 'proof' that the Grand Canyon was formed by the theories dboyzero presented. But to be honest, you haven't proven anything we don't already know. You don't even know what proof is. I am not meaning to sound rude, but if proof to you is a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of Hebrews, you really need to stop asking people to explain the scientifical side of things. Because the only 'proof' you have been able to come up with have to deal with what other people have written down or saw. There are few stories in the old testament of the bible that can be explained scientifically, historically, geographically etc. So, the only 'proof' you HAVE, is from other humans. And as a human, you should know we are not always right (:

So, no one was around to document the formation of the Grand Canyon, therefore the most logical explaination for its creation is ruled out. Is that what you're saying? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

 

[souloe]

@dboyzero:

1. sources
5 sources with credibility? Pastors have great credibility, general consences is that if anyone, they should be the ones most honest. So why don't you believe in their words? Obviously becuase you don't trust their believe, at least not until there is solid evidence, even though you might believe that they are telling the truth as they know it. But then does the same not go for you? You bring out sources and lets suppose they have the same honesty credibility, do you think what they researched is 100% right? No mistakes, no misinterpretations, no bias due to what society teaches? Say the example you brought up earlier:

Quote:

-Comparative Anatomy: As we all evolved from similar ancestors, it would only make sense for us to have similar structures.

Did I not also provide a perfectly logical alternative explaination with equal evidential support? (which is zero by the way) You believed that it is only natural for it to be an explaianation for evolution, yet did you realize it is perfectly logical to support creationism as well? Is this not bias? Can you be sure there's no bias in interpretation of their experiements? Much like you don't take pastors' words as absolute credible sources, i don't take yours as absolute credible sources either. We really both want the same thing if you think about it. You and I, we want evidence. Just saying "someone else says it" doesn't cut it for us. Not for me at least, what about you?

2. grand canyon
just saying "there wasn't anything we could observe" isn't really saying much since you dont' have any evidence to support that. Yet the point really isn't to prove that the grand canyon is created by the flood. I've repeated many atimes that I am not spewing from knowledge, and in fact I have little knowledge about the details of the proofs of either side. Yet what is more interesting is how you can support what you believe. Why do you believe what you believe. Can you support it with real evidence? I've been wanting to see you in action (figure of speach) for some time now and so I've not only brought up the grand canyon but also asked you to prove evolution - that you believe so strongly about - and the big bang - which you also believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Can you support it with real evidence, the same that you required of others?  

[souloe]

@Rioku: lol, notice I've given up color coding my stuff, getting lazy XP

1. design and designer
Looking at something of complex design naturally, by logic, brings us to a conclusion that there is a designer. Like say, a robot, a computer, a tank, even things like Ampmeter, coffee filter, a door, a drawer, can you say that any of that came together by itself by random chance and somehow things just fit into what they are without reason and without purpose? I would think not.

2. words in my mouth
Now again, please don't put words in my mouth and bash me for it. This isnt' the first time you've done it and I do hope you would stop. I stated that the universe is a complex system, the human body, computers and cars also. But never did I say "everything" and never did I say "God". By you framing me and then condemning me for it, I think it is a little unfair.

3. denying proof


4. what is proof
You say I dont' know what proof is. Then can you deny all the proofs that I have brought up? Can you refute the logic I have presented? Do they not support my views in any way? Do you really think I don't know what proof is? If you ask dboyzero, would he agree with you in saying that "souloe doesn't know what proof is"?

I used the Bible as proof because I can prove its credibility just like historians can prove credibiltiy of ancient texts. You've dispelled it simply because it is old and simply because it is written by "a bunch of Hebrews". Yet do you think that is sufficient logic and support to refute the Bible or to indicate it as an unscientific mythical book as you seemed to be hinting? (or so that's what I'm getting) Now let me ask you. Where is your proof that the Bible is non-credible? Where is your proof that the Bible is unscientific? Where is your proof that the Bible is only just some book that some Hebrews wrote? Where is your proof, ye who claimed that souloe knows no proof.

5. proof of the Bible
The proof I bring is the same as historians when they try the credibility and validity of ancient texts. I, of course, am not as professional, not as skilled nor as knowledgeable as they. However, if you were to refute my methods of proving the Bible you are essentially refuting all ancient texts saying none are credible. You would be refuting much ancient history as they are taught today. Can you boldly make that claim? Can you support that claim and defend it?  

[R i o k u]

You have not proven anything except that the bible stories have as equal a chance of being true as false. Just like you are waiting for proof, so am I. I want some concrete evidence that the old testament is true.

 

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Regarding credible sources.

Pastors I would not say have great credibility concerning a great deal of things, the natural history of the planet being one of them. I don't trust individual research, but when that research is compounded upon again and again by experimental data, and absolutely no credible evidence for the opposing viewpoint, one must certainly begin to question whether it really is just a bias. You make it sound as if these 5 sources are isolated from the rest of the planet. I simply used five because I felt it would be a sufficient number to illustrate my point about multiple sources confirming the same information. I even brought up an opposing viewpoint and explained how it lacked credibility, and yet was the most popular site for the opposition.

Since this obviously does not convince you, what would you suggest? Would any amount of outside sources convince you? If not, I already explained that the way to obtain hard evidence exists, unlike evidence for the existence of a deity. Of course, this would require you to either trust me to go and do the testing or me trusting you to do it.

You already explained that you have very little knowledge for the creation of the Grand Canyon, which is fine. Your point, it seems, is why I believe in evolution and geological processes and other natural sciences. It is not because I personally can provide real evidence, but that others can. I believe because I have seen it in action and know by way of logical processes that the logical scientific method works. I can give you real evidence, but I wonder if you would believe it. We know that fire requires oxygen or a similar combusting gas to burn, and that by cutting off a supply of these gases from a flame that we can extinguish it. This can and has been proven experimentally, and is used to extinguish flames every single day. Is that the kind of real evidence you're looking for? That's the kind of real evidence I'm looking for.

To prove the existence of a deity, we would first have to determine what a world would be like with the existence of a deity and what a world would be like without the existence of deity, just like we can determine what a flame would be with the presence of combustible gases and without. However, unlike the flame experiment, we have no frame of reference and no way to logically determine either. We only exist in one world, and we have to guess whether it was designed or came about naturally. There is absolutely no way to do this, as we're under the assumption that the deity created all things, rather than just creating some supernaturally and let others develop naturally. If you can find something tangible that we can say absolutely was not the product of divine creation, then we have a starting point. Natural sciences, while not perfect, can operate in this first stage where theology cannot: observation. We can observe and record the physical properties of the world around us, and come to conclusions about what happened in the past by predicting them to be true in the future.

This is the main point of all sciences, physical or otherwise. To define a set of phenomena that we can successfully predict the results in the future. This is how we prove things, and how we know things to be true. This is what we know of as real evidence. Not just logical deductions, but being able to predict and prove things to be true. We know people in the past cannot have walked on water, because we know it cannot happen in the future under the same circumstances. And we assume that the circumstances are the same because that is the nature of physical properties; that they cannot change and will remain predictable.

Would any of that satisfy you as "proof" or "evidence?"  

[MMarr]

Humans. What are humans? basically they are thinking man. We take concepts, theories, we learn them, and we understand them.

Christianity is a Theory.
It is not proven. in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. I will explain


Religion is a Concept
It is also an answer, to something we will never have.

We will never have a full definition as to how we got here, what made the earth, where the universe came from, these are things that will boggle your mind for the rest of your life, unless youve come to a Religion that you are solely content with.

But it's just a comfort, is it not? You can never be certain of all these questions, so religion steps in, takes all these questions and pinpoints them into seperate ways of life, concepts and such.

So, christianity is a theory, that came from a concept, in which is a comfort, so you feel as if you have a reason to live.

Animals and such do not need this because they have not surpassed a level of intelligence that allows them to understand food, fighting to live for the purpose of living, sex (which they barely understand).

We most definately have.

So, without further ado you can tell I am not a christian, because since the age of 11 I have deeply searched and thought. I thought, and i thought, and i thought, and ive never stopped thinking like this.

I would rather not know all these questions, then to search for answers that have no credibility. They have a book. People consider the Bible PROOF of the Lord.

How do you know this? How do you know that the Bible wasnt made by some crazy who searched for answers to a point where he created his own imaginary god in his mind, that helped him think that he could finally understand the world?

When you 'pray', how do you know that God can hear you, or whether or not your Mind hears you, and your Mind helps you fight your way through whatever you are praying for. How Do You Know?  

[R i o k u]

dboyzero, your superior intelligence puts me to shame x.x;;

 

[Azrael_the_Ghost]

God as an entity I do not fully agree with.
Made in God's image? We have no rational idea of that. Why consider god an entity?

No God is a concept manufactured by man, a loose description of the forming of life.
We all hold some concept of a divine or creation theory. And we can continue trying to describe how everything came to be. But we are as now what our ancestors were then, as everything was in all time. Here.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

R i o k u

dboyzero, your superior intelligence puts me to shame x.x;;

redface You're making me blush... Anyways, I've got a bit more to go, I'll put it up tonight if I can.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Regarding the Credibility of the Bible

I must thank you for bringing that up as it has finally spurred me on to finally do what I set out to do. Below I will present my case for one discrepancy in the Bible which I am most familiar with. Personally, I don’t believe that a single misgiving in a text is enough to bar its credibility, but if you are satisfied with one, that is what I’ll deliver. This is mostly because I’m not terribly familiar with the rest of the text, but this (Genesis) is one part with which I am rather confident about.

Firstly, you asked previously why there has been no big noise about why the Bible has been refuted, and that it shouldn’t be taken literally. I see now that my previous answer was inadequate, while I personally don’t believe it to be invalid. There is, however, a more logical one: it already happened. Obviously, it hasn’t happened recently, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. However, the Renaissance period of Europe saw the dawn of the Scientific Revolution, in which many individuals made radical claims about the natural world, nearly all of which went directly against church teachings and led to calls of heresy and witchcraft. These people were persecuted for their beliefs, and yet it is under them that we study a half a millenium later. It was thanks to the likes of Galileo, Copernicus, Brahe, Bacon, and many others that people stopped taking the Bible literally, and led to the world we’re in. Sure, society makes us teach the way of science, and by looking solely at the present you could argue that this is the reason that religion doesn’t have as much sway. However, by taking the past into account, especially a past where the church’s word was law (from the Middle Ages on), and seeing the world we’re in now, wouldn’t you say that the credibility of the scientific method must have validity, explaining how we were able to take ideas that were once completely heretical and scoffed at by all, confirm them with data and reasoning, and eventually use them to advance our technology and science into where it is today? There will be no news story or breaking coverage about science disproving elements of the Bible because it has already happened. Very few people take the Bible literally any more, and even fewer believe that simply because one part is true that the rest must be as well (or the opposite regarding one part being false). I believe that there are definitely parts of the Bible that are factual and true, verified historically and archaeologically. However, this is not proof that the rest of it must be, as that would be committing the fallacy of logic known as “truth (or falsehood) by association.” It would be the same as one saying, “Apples fall down, and I can fly.” We know that apples fall down, and we know this to be true, but that doesn’t mean that the second part is true as well.

Okay, on to the meat and potatoes. There are several key differences between the first and second chapters of Genesis that have led most theologians, historians, and Biblical scholars to believe that they were written at (substantially) different times by different people. These differences lie in the actual text itself, the content of the texts, and the history of the texts and references to them. I will be using the New Oxford Translation for the text.

The text itself features a few distinct contradictions between the two chapters, which implies that they are meant to be portrayed as different stories rather than one and the same. Beginning with the existence prior to creation, the world is described as such.

Genesis 1:2

…the earth was a formless void and darkness covered (the) deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

This presents the world before creation as a watery chaos, possibly symbolizing the Babylonian goddess Tiamat, as the word “deep” (Heb. tehom) has no definite article attached to it. Aside from this possible reference, this states that there is a world prior to creation, whereas 2 Macc 7:28 says (this was taken from the site http://newadvent.org because I only have the books of Genesis with me):

2 Maccabees 7:28

…look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them, and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also…

If the world was made out of nothing, what was the watery chaos?

Moving on, the second chapter even disputes whether it was a watery chaos, as it describes the world prior to creation much differently (as you can see, this shows a second creation story entirely, but I’ll get to that in a bit).

Genesis 2:5

…when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground…

Earth? Ground? So now we see that the world is not a watery chaos, but a fallow plain, a field with no plants and no rain. This is very similar to other creation myths of the ancient Near East, representing a desert or other barren lands.

Now we get to the actual creation itself. The first chapter contains the very familiar seven day creation, but the second chapter features a creation story of one day.

Genesis 2:4 – 2:7

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Quite different from the first chapter, as I you can see. Not only does this all take place within the course of a single day, but the whole creation is actually completely different from the way things were in the other story. In the first chapter, man is created last, after all the plants and animals and so forth. However, in this version, man is created first, and then the garden of Eden is planted with all the plants of the world, and then all the animals are made. Being a deity, why would man, plants, animals, or the world itself need to be created twice? Also, in the first chapter male and female are created at the same time, evidenced by the following quote.

Genesis 1:27

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

This contradicts the second creation story, which is famous for the creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib.

Genesis 2:22

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

And this creation of woman takes place after the creation of the plants and animals as well.

Speaking of animals, the first chapter features the creation of the animals as a divine event, done to fill the skies, seas, and land. The second chapter, however, has a different motive for creation.

Genesis 2:18 – 2:19

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them…

Now, while we’re on the subject of the character of “God,” there are some other key differences between the ways he’s portrayed in these two chapters of Genesis. The first is his name. In the first chapter, the word for God is a name, the Hebrew Elohim meaning “divinity.” It’s actually the pluralized version of the word Eloah, which may be another reference to polytheistic origins. However, grammatically speaking, it’s used as both a plural and a singular, depending on the passage of the Bible. But the word itself is used by itself in the first chapter, that’s what’s important. This is important because in the second chapter of Genesis, they refer to God as Yahweh Elohim, which translates to “Lord God.” Odd isn’t it? If you reread the first and second chapters with this in mind, it certainly makes a bit of a difference.

God is also portrayed differently by the way he acts and creates in the two chapters, which speaks of a different interpretation and a different story. In the first chapter, he’s elevated to a cosmic scale, almost immeasurably powerful and vast. However, he’s still man enough for us to relate to, which begs the question of why he can’t escape from human trappings. In any case, his power is in his language, befitting of the intellectual that was idealized. He uses words and ideas, creating with but a word from his divine lips. Read the first chapter closely—it follows almost a formula of “God said, there was, and he saw it to be good.” His challenges are cosmic and spectacular, as great as the sky and sea (sound familiar?). The focus is on separation, separating the light from the dark, separating the water from the sky, separating water from the earth, and so forth. In essence, it’s a big way of organizing the muddy mess that was there before God stepped in and spoke it out of existence, the triumph of order over chaos. Chaos has traditionally been represented by the seas, a realm out of the control of man and civilization.

In the second chapter, God is much more down to earth, and quite literally, although he’s still divine and unable to be represented by humankind. The realm is earth, and he creates using his hands to sculpt things into existence, representing the laborer or the craftsman. He also plants the Eden and all the things that grow within it, representing the farmer. His challenges are agricultural in nature, and he creates Adam to till the land for him. It is also interesting to note that in the third chapter (mentioned because the second and third chapters are connected), he physically walks through the garden, rather than being the omnipotent speaker from above, as mentioned in the first chapter.

Lastly, I come to the history of the text. As quoted by the New Oxford Translations introduction to Genesis, “Two hundred and fifty years of historical-critical scholarship have established that Genesis was written over a long period of time, using oral and written traditions…Ever since the work of Graf and Wellhausen in the late nineteenth century, most scholars have recognized that the earliest origins of Genesis probably are to be found in the non-Priestly material [the Priestly material is the label given to the first chapter of Genesis and other passages].”

Of course, this is probably not enough to convince you of this point, as it truly doesn’t contain any hard or physically tangible evidence for you to work with. Like the case with the Grand Canyon, the empirical evidence would have to be dating the source. Until we can find that source, we’ll never know for sure the true ages for the manuscripts (assuming, of course, that you’re willing to trust the word of another on their age and dating). The fact of the matter remains that this will continue to be debated until one side fades away to the sands of time. Right now I could show you several articles which make sense of the two chapters of Genesis, arguing that they are indeed the work of the same author, and that the documentary hypothesis is full of falsehoods. However, it would only make sense for people to defend their faith, their holy texts, in such a manner. The fact that such a controversial idea, born amidst such a Christian environment, has managed to survive with such evidence for two centuries grants it great credibility, in my opinion. However, as I said before, it depends on your interpretation of the text under question, and it is that human interpretation that leads to so many conflicts.

Recently, a computer was used to analyze the text of the Genesis to determine consistencies, or lack thereof, with the authorship. Like all things, where you get the story matters greatly to what story you get.

From the Answers in Genesis website:

Omni Magazine

After feeding the 20,000 Hebrew words of Genesis into a computer at Technion University in Israel, researchers found many sentences that ended in verbs and numerous words of six characters or more. Because these idiosyncratic patterns appear again and again, says project director Yehuda Radday, it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.

From the Time website:

Time Magazine

Radday and three aides studied "the only unquestionable data," the words of the Hebrew text, and concentrated on 56 criteria of "language behavior" (such as use of conjunctions and word length) that are outside the conscious control of an author. The key finding: a remarkably high 82% probability that the same person wrote the supposed J and E passages. The P passages were as distinct as the critics have long maintained, but Radday contends that the difference can be explained totally by the formalistic content.

Time Magazine

Earlier [Radday] earned wide acclaim when his whirring computers supported the conventional theory that multiple authors produced the books of Judges, Zechariah and Isaiah.

See what I mean?

I must close with this point: that regardless of the textual inconsistencies or historical inaccuracies, the Bible is still a religious document, and that its meaning is not detracted after being dealt with by human devices. Taken from Simple to Remember, the following makes sense to me about the nature of Biblical Criticism and the true points of it all.

Quote:

The Torah is a covenantal document and is to be studied as such. It does not inform us of "facts," "history," or "anthropology." It reveals a continuous encounter between God and man, which was set in motion with the revelation at Sinai. It cannot be read but only studied, proclaimed, heard, and experienced. The encounter with its text is a religious act and therefore prefaced with a blessing. For this reason it is untouched and unimpaired by the results of Bible Criticism.

 

[souloe]

@dboyzero: this thread really is interesting smile

1. Bible proven wrong
You claim that the Bible had been refuted at the time of the Renaissance. Yet did you realize that that argument is flawed? Lets take "The universe revolves around the earth" for example. Where in the Bible do you find that statement? The radical ideas that you talked about, those that have been proven true, do you really think they contradict what the Bible says? Or do they contradict what the People said? The Bible has definately not been modified. We can see that through using the dead sea scrolls. So why do people today believe in it? How many people today are Christians again? Can you say that all Christians are unintelligent beings who can't tell truth from lies? Being as attacked as it has been, people only need to re-bring up those proofs to prove the Bible wrong and Christianity a hoax right? Do you realize the flaw in your argument? It doesn't prove the Bible false at all.

2. "meet and potatoes"
Ah yes, this is what I'm looking for. You quoted the Bible, then you gave reason as to why it is incorrect. Of course, I do have a little comments about the actual details you presented. lol First things first, if you are going to quote the Bible, the translation you are using isn't a good one. For a start there is no 2Macc in the Bible.

/==1==/
The first proof with quote and reason is: Gen 1:2 does not allign with 2 Macc 7:28.

Pick up any NIV Bible and search through. I assure you, you will not find 2Macc.

/==2==/
Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

A world before creation? Please, again, don't just take sections of the Bible and then discect it saying its wrong. Look at verse 1. lol. As well, how did you come up with watery chaos? hovering over the waters, okay, I get the water part but what about the chaos?

/==3==/
You claim that the second chapter displays the world as a fallow plain, a field with no plants and no rain. But did you actually read the text?

Genesis 2:6 "but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-"

If it watered the whole surface of the ground how is that mismatch with the earlier verse? And if you said that the earth is a fallow plain then I am guessing either you left this part out on purpose or you did not read it carefully. Please don't take small chunks of the Bible, exclude the rest, and then bash it down claiming its invalidity.

/==4==/
You claim discreptancy between 1st and 2nd chapter.

Quote:

Gen 2:4-7 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed"

Looking at the Bible in front of me I do see a difference from what is on the page compared to what you posted up. As well, it doesn't say God created man before the plants and all else. Rather, it does say that God had already planted a garden, "and there he put the man he had formed".

As well, looking at the text it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." Thus how is it second creation? If you look at the length of the creation sections between the two chapters you would at least realize one is longer and more detailed than the other wouldnt' you? The second chapter is focused mainly on Adam and Eve and wtih all logic, I see not a repeat but a small intro before leading into the "main dish" of the context.

/==5==/
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

How is it contradictory to the second chapter? In the first chapter it says God created them but it didn't specify the details. IN the second chapter it gave more details ie. ribs. Where do you see a contradiction?

/==6==/
Now I'm seriously questioning about your source... I'll type out what is in the Bible in front of me.

Genesis 2:18-19 "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

/==7==/
God... you don't know very much about Him do you? There are countless names that can be used to refer to God. Say for example, Jehova and Immanuel. If you search it up I'm sure you would find a whole list. So, I do apologize but I don't quite understand how this is contradictory.

/==8==/
How God acts... again, I don't believe you really understand God. In fact, it seems to me that you are trying to put Him into a box. He is God. And in addition, realizing that God wants a relationship with us, what would stop Him from showing Himself in a form we can relate to? If anything it makes more sense that He does. Wouldn't you agree?

The Bible says "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." To me, that sounds more like a command of power. Commanding things to come into existance. I don't know why but you seem to like to put God into a box. Sorry, I do apologize if I'm slow but how exactly do these God statements refute the Bible?

And... what about it that the Bible was written over such time span and by different authors??? The books don't conflict each other even though they were written by so many authors over such time span. Doesn't that make it more creadible rather than less?

You made a hasty conclusion but should you not at least have waited to see the flaws in your arguments before making that conclusion? But yes, I would agree wtih you in that this debate can probably go on for a rather long time if we let it. If its not too much trouble, would you please send me a pm when you do get a chance to post the supports you have for evolution? That'd be greatly appreciated, thanks. Oh, make sure you put in a bunch of transitional fossils. Those can't be lacked can they? thanks.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Quote:

1. Bible proven wrong
You claim that the Bible had been refuted at the time of the Renaissance. Yet did you realize that that argument is flawed? Lets take "The universe revolves around the earth" for example. Where in the Bible do you find that statement? The radical ideas that you talked about, those that have been proven true, do you really think they contradict what the Bible says? Or do they contradict what the People said? The Bible has definately not been modified. We can see that through using the dead sea scrolls. So why do people today believe in it? How many people today are Christians again? Can you say that all Christians are unintelligent beings who can't tell truth from lies? Being as attacked as it has been, people only need to re-bring up those proofs to prove the Bible wrong and Christianity a hoax right? Do you realize the flaw in your argument? It doesn't prove the Bible false at all.

I didn’t say that the Bible was proven wrong—I said that people don’t take it literally anymore. The Bible says that the world was created in 6 days, and we know this cannot be true because of the geological and cosmic timescale, the latter of which you used yourself to show that the Big Bang occurred. The Bible states that a global flood occurred that covered the entire planet, and yet we’ve proven this to be false based on the geological formations all over the planet. How many Christians are there again? If the Bible was proven to be taken literally, why aren’t we doing so? After 500 years of observation and experimentation, we know that it can’t have happened as written.

Quote:

2. "meet and potatoes"
Ah yes, this is what I'm looking for. You quoted the Bible, then you gave reason as to why it is incorrect. Of course, I do have a little comments about the actual details you presented. lol First things first, if you are going to quote the Bible, the translation you are using isn't a good one. For a start there is no 2Macc in the Bible.

/==1==/
The first proof with quote and reason is: Gen 1:2 does not allign with 2 Macc 7:28.

Pick up any NIV Bible and search through. I assure you, you will not find 2Macc.

It depends on the version of the Bible you’re reading, am I correct? The second book of Maccabees is considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. My apologies if you don’t fit into either of these denominations, but it is still a biblical text. The text I’m using (as I said before) is the latest Oxford Translation, and is the most widely accepted version for scholarly work. Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, and traditional Jews all contribute to make sure it is accurate and significant.

Quote:

/==2==/
Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

A world before creation? Please, again, don't just take sections of the Bible and then discect it saying its wrong. Look at verse 1. lol. As well, how did you come up with watery chaos? hovering over the waters, okay, I get the water part but what about the chaos?

The world may have been empty, but the water exists, does it not? The chaos is derived from the word “deep,” Hebrew tehom, which as I explained earlier, lacks a definite article and has a connection to the Babylonian goddess Tiamat, who represented oceanic chaos.

Quote:

/==3==/
You claim that the second chapter displays the world as a fallow plain, a field with no plants and no rain. But did you actually read the text?

Genesis 2:6 "but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-"

If it watered the whole surface of the ground how is that mismatch with the earlier verse? And if you said that the earth is a fallow plain then I am guessing either you left this part out on purpose or you did not read it carefully. Please don't take small chunks of the Bible, exclude the rest, and then bash it down claiming its invalidity.

Did you catch the “but?” This means that the world was a fallow plain to begin with, and then the waters came about and allowed God to sculpt mankind. I’m not taking small chunks, I’m even taking a broader look than you’re giving, as it is I the sentence afterward (verse 7) that it reads “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.” The two go hand in hand, but it was before creation that I’m referring to, not yet the actual creation of man.

Quote:

/==4==/
You claim discreptancy between 1st and 2nd chapter.
Quote:
Gen 2:4-7 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed"


Looking at the Bible in front of me I do see a difference from what is on the page compared to what you posted up. As well, it doesn't say God created man before the plants and all else. Rather, it does say that God had already planted a garden, "and there he put the man he had formed".

As well, looking at the text it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." Thus how is it second creation? If you look at the length of the creation sections between the two chapters you would at least realize one is longer and more detailed than the other wouldnt' you? The second chapter is focused mainly on Adam and Eve and wtih all logic, I see not a repeat but a small intro before leading into the "main dish" of the context.

Depending on how you read it, I suppose it can read either way (referring to verse cool and the translation does indeed make quite the difference when referring to verse 4. However, in 9 and 18 you could argue that the plants and animals were created after man (Adam) was created. More on this later.

Quote:

/==5==/
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

How is it contradictory to the second chapter? In the first chapter it says God created them but it didn't specify the details. IN the second chapter it gave more details ie. ribs. Where do you see a contradiction?

It’s simple; in the first chapter he created man and woman at the same time after he had created everything else, whereas in the second chapter he created man, then plants and animals, then woman. Like I just mentioned, versions and interpretations can change how you look at this.

Quote:

/==6==/
Now I'm seriously questioning about your source... I'll type out what is in the Bible in front of me.

Genesis 2:18-19 "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

Doesn’t it seem odd that they would only mention all of this after the creation of man, where in the first chapter man was clearly created last? It seems like you’re reading the “Now the Lord God had formed” as if the “now” was a “now, see here” kind of “now.” Forgive me, my knowledge of grammatical nuances aren’t as keen as they used to be, but the way I see it it’s emphasizing the “now” in the passage, like a “now you can see” kind of now. It is this that shows how God formed the animals (and plants, going back to an earlier verse) after Adam. And women haven’t even been made yet, which clearly contradicts the first book.

Quote:

/==7==/
God... you don't know very much about Him do you? There are countless names that can be used to refer to God. Say for example, Jehova and Immanuel. If you search it up I'm sure you would find a whole list. So, I do apologize but I don't quite understand how this is contradictory.

So why don’t we see the different names of God used interchangeably? If there’s one truth to powerful writing (and the Bible is a prime example of this), it’s that every word is used for a reason. Why use just Elohim when you can use YHWH Elohim, also pronounced Yahweh or Jehova. Or are the names just used arbitrarily, with no forethought whatsoever? And an even bigger question, if there truly is one author, why would there be multiple names at all? Is this not confusing and redundant in any kind of writing, to use multiple labels for the same thing?

Quote:

/==8==/
How God acts... again, I don't believe you really understand God. In fact, it seems to me that you are trying to put Him into a box. He is God. And in addition, realizing that God wants a relationship with us, what would stop Him from showing Himself in a form we can relate to? If anything it makes more sense that He does. Wouldn't you agree?

The Bible says "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." To me, that sounds more like a command of power. Commanding things to come into existance. I don't know why but you seem to like to put God into a box. Sorry, I do apologize if I'm slow but how exactly do these God statements refute the Bible?

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “trying to put God in a box.” Please explain, but I guess it means you think I’m trying to rationalize God? Then yes, that is exactly what I’m trying to do. Because this is a forum for intelligent discussion, and rationalizing is what intelligent discussion is all about. He’s God, of course he is. But the question is what this exactly means. Commanding things into existence is precisely the point I was trying to make. That’s because in the second chapter, he doesn’t do that at all. He forms Adam and the beasts out of the dust of the earth, and plants the garden of Eden, whereas the God of the first chapter could just (and quite literally) say the word and it would be done. This is but one piece of evidence which makes the idea of it being one and the same god between the two different chapters questionable.

Quote:

And... what about it that the Bible was written over such time span and by different authors??? The books don't conflict each other even though they were written by so many authors over such time span. Doesn't that make it more creadible rather than less?

You made a hasty conclusion but should you not at least have waited to see the flaws in your arguments before making that conclusion? But yes, I would agree wtih you in that this debate can probably go on for a rather long time if we let it. If its not too much trouble, would you please send me a pm when you do get a chance to post the supports you have for evolution? That'd be greatly appreciated, thanks. Oh, make sure you put in a bunch of transitional fossils. Those can't be lacked can they? thanks.

It’s not just that the Bible was written by many different authors over long spans of time (although it’s nice to know that you agree with me on that one), but that Genesis (supposedly written by Moses along with all the other books of the Pentateuch at the same time) was written by at least two different people, if not more. The point is that they do conflict with each other, but I suppose if you read the book as a believer you’d be far less inclined to see it that way. Just how closely did you read my arguments? It almost seemed like you just skimmed it over without pausing to really think about them.

I’ll be sure to PM you when I do the evolution bit. I think I’ve only got time in my schedule for one mammoth post per week, and maybe not even then since I’ve got a show coming up that I’ve got to prepare for in a couple weeks. Just stick around and be patient, I never back down from a challenge.