Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. The NT Gospel writers all claim to record things said by Jesus or done by Him. Your "no one will ever know" basically renders ALL historical knowledge suspect. Is that where you want to go? How will you ever know if we are all not merely brains in a vat? Being skeptical is OK if it is healthy skepticism, but being cynical is another thing.
2. On what basis do you think that Jesus was not dead as in really dead?
3. Concerning Jonah's three days in the belly of the fish, aren't you missing something? In the same way, no human being can be really dead for three days and then come back to life. In the same vein no donkey or snake is gonna talk anytime soon. But the thing you are missing here is the hand of God in all this. And it's not that the Bible is vague, but that the Hebrew language is such that some words can have certain vagueness and depends on context. And I would challenge the view that anything can be misconstrued in the Bible.
4. You don't seem that informed about the Bible, though you claimed to have some kind of Christian or church background. Read Exodus 20 please. Yours is an argument by incredulity. If it sounds incredulous then it must be false. Anything that is miraculous -- such as predictive prophecy -- is dismissed out of hand. Sometimes a touch of insult is added upon those who believe in miracles. Even if you think your argument is logical and plausible, it does not mean your view is true.
5. Yes, the Bible was written by humans for humans. But it was not just a human book. Paul claimed that ALL Scripture is God-breathed i.e. God is the divine author who spoke through humans. You said the Bible has been re-written many times. Where's your evidence? Or is this just your opinion? And then as if to excuse yourself from having to prove anything you conveniently come up with the "how would anyone know?" kind of question.
6. To say that you find the Bible hard to believe is very subjective. It depends very much on your worldview. If you hold to naturalism as a belief system, anything that hints at the supernatural is hard to believe. But truth is, even atheism is hard to believe. Why? Because atheism says that the universe made itself from nothing. You find that easy to believe?
1. I happen to have a healthy dose of skepticism, thank you. I just agree to take everything with a pinch of salt.
2. On what basis do you think that Jesus was really dead? Medical technology was not there then. Majority of the people were not that highly educated. Point proven - I've told you about Criss Angel, have I not? It is just MY theory, I'm not saying it's true, so keep your hair on.
3. "the Hebrew language is such that some words can have certain vagueness and depends on context." There you go..not saying you haven't, but have you considered the possibility that some people before you, in the very early times, miscontrued something and hence the bible has been this way since then?
4. You seem to disbelieve that I have a Christian background. Anyway, this is out of point.
5. It is not an opinion. Why would I 'conveniently' try to 'excuse' myself from having to prove anything? WHICH book has never been re-written? You hold too much faith in humanity to think that the bible would not have been edited. I'm just saying, keep your mind open that the the bible has probably been edited. Just because there is no proof it was edited, does not mean it hasn't been.
You are the one taking offense too easily. Very un-Christian like. Defend your faith, not carry out personal attacks on people.
6. What makes you think I am atheist? I simply do not believe in God/religions. I'm not about to classify myself into a group. And to answer your question, Yes, the Atheist view is easier to believe. 'Nothing' can imply 'nothing that we can see with our naked eyes' which are atoms and molecules. I believe in the big bang theory and evolution. I do not believe in "Let there be light, and there was light".
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:1. I happen to have a healthy dose of skepticism, thank you. I just agree to take everything with a pinch of salt.
2. On what basis do you think that Jesus was really dead? Medical technology was not there then. Majority of the people were not that highly educated. Point proven - I've told you about Criss Angel, have I not? It is just MY theory, I'm not saying it's true, so keep your hair on.
3. "the Hebrew language is such that some words can have certain vagueness and depends on context." There you go..not saying you haven't, but have you considered the possibility that some people before you, in the very early times, miscontrued something and hence the bible has been this way since then?
4. You seem to disbelieve that I have a Christian background. Anyway, this is out of point.
5. It is not an opinion. Why would I 'conveniently' try to 'excuse' myself from having to prove anything? WHICH book has never been re-written? You hold too much faith in humanity to think that the bible would not have been edited. I'm just saying, keep your mind open that the the bible has probably been edited. Just because there is no proof it was edited, does not mean it hasn't been.
You are the one taking offense too easily. Very un-Christian like. Defend your faith, not carry out personal attacks on people.
6. What makes you think I am atheist? I simply do not believe in God/religions. I'm not about to classify myself into a group. And to answer your question, Yes, the Atheist view is easier to believe. 'Nothing' can imply 'nothing that we can see with our naked eyes' which are atoms and molecules. I believe in the big bang theory and evolution. I do not believe in "Let there be light, and there was light".
1. Do you also take a pinch of salt with your currently held views about the Bible?
2. No historian of repute dispute the death of Jesus. What kind of medical technology do you need to ascertain that dead people stay dead in ancient times?
3. We can entertain "possibilities" all day long over every conceivable thing. But what's the point of it? Again it seems to me that your view of things is more of a cynic than a skeptic. A healthy skeptic asks for evidence before believing. But you are more like asking "How you know we are all not brains in a vat?"
4. Pardon my disbelief, but I am really skeptical of someone who claims to have some kind of Bible background but yet ask "Did God say cannot make idol and worship?"
5. If you have no evidence to support the allegation that the Bible has been re-written and edited, why should it not be properly called an opinion? Else it would be an argument from ignorance you are invoking. And it wasn't a personal attack to suggest that you were taking a cop-out position. Just think, if you are already decided that "nobody really knows" then it makes all answers moot. I can give you all the evidence and you can just simply wave it off with a "well nobody really knows" dismissive answer.
6. Whether you are an atheist or not I leave it to you to clarify. When dealing with nonbelievers I tend to assume I am dealing with atheists unless they have already identified themselves as belonging to another religion. By nothing I mean absolutely nothing, not unseen atoms. Thanks for telling me you BELIEVE in big bang and evolution. When we deal with the past it's pretty much boils down to belief since we cannot test it. So how does something come from absolutely nothing? How does life come from nonliving matter?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Except the Bible isn't just any book that I pick up stuff from.
Yes, we have been through this before. Your so-called errors and inconsistencies are old canards that have been addressed and refuted, which goes to show that as a whole it is atheists like you who are unreliable in your claims against the Bible.
SUre. You believe in magic fruit but I dont and that is why you can come up with all kinds of explanation. ANd also for talking donkey and dragons too.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. Do you also take a pinch of salt with your currently held views about the Bible?
2. No historian of repute dispute the death of Jesus. What kind of medical technology do you need to ascertain that dead people stay dead in ancient times?
3. We can entertain "possibilities" all day long over every conceivable thing. But what's the point of it? Again it seems to me that your view of things is more of a cynic than a skeptic. A healthy skeptic asks for evidence before believing. But you are more like asking "How you know we are all not brains in a vat?"
4. Pardon my disbelief, but I am really skeptical of someone who claims to have some kind of Bible background but yet ask "Did God say cannot make idol and worship?"
5. If you have no evidence to support the allegation that the Bible has been re-written and edited, why should it not be properly called an opinion? Else it would be an argument from ignorance you are invoking. And it wasn't a personal attack to suggest that you were taking a cop-out position. Just think, if you are already decided that "nobody really knows" then it makes all answers moot. I can give you all the evidence and you can just simply wave it off with a "well nobody really knows" dismissive answer.
6. Whether you are an atheist or not I leave it to you to clarify. When dealing with nonbelievers I tend to assume I am dealing with atheists unless they have already identified themselves as belonging to another religion. By nothing I mean absolutely nothing, not unseen atoms. Thanks for telling me you BELIEVE in big bang and evolution. When we deal with the past it's pretty much boils down to belief since we cannot test it. So how does something come from absolutely nothing? How does life come from nonliving matter?
I'm only touching on two points.
4. Don't twist my words or put words in my mouth ie.
"Did God say cannot make idol and worship?"
Did I say that? Your words are way out.
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:I don't agree with how we should Idolise and revere anything, human, object, spiritual. Didn't the bible say that Idolization is a sin?
6:
Originally posted by BrotherInChrist:When we deal with the past it's pretty much boils down to belief since we cannot test it.
You believe in yours, I believe in mine. I don't sense any open-mindedness here; was just asking you some questions and you take offense.
I am not interested in any 'discussions' whatsoever that involves people being belligerent over stuff that is not based on fact.
ERROR 1
1 Kings 4:26 says “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…”
2 Chronicles 9:25 says “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…”
ERROR 2
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says “…Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and…died with him. So Saul died…”
2 Samuel 21:12 says “…the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa.”
ERROR 3
James 1:13 says “..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”
Gen 22:1 says “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…”
ERROR 4
2 Kings 8:26 says “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…” 2 Chronicles 22:2 says “Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”
ERROR 5
Matt 13:31-32: ” “the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree.” There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don’t grow into trees.
And more.
BIC, are you gonna say the errors are there for a "mysterious divine purpose"?
Originally posted by Tcmc:SUre. You believe in magic fruit but I dont and that is why you can come up with all kinds of explanation. ANd also for talking donkey and dragons too.
Wrong. I believe in God which is rational and logical, compared to you believing that nothing can produce something.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Wrong. I believe in God which is rational and logical, compared to you believing that nothing can produce something.
These words, 'God', 'rational' and 'logical' do not go together.
As I have said before, 'nothing' can imply 'nothing that is seen by the naked eye'. Don't refute that, since you like the bible, which is, at best, vague and ambiguous.
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:I'm only touching on two points.
4. Don't twist my words or put words in my mouth ie.
"Did God say cannot make idol and worship?"
Did I say that? Your words are way out.
6:
You believe in yours, I believe in mine. I don't sense any open-mindedness here; was just asking you some questions and you take offense.
I am not interested in any 'discussions' whatsoever that involves people being belligerent over stuff that is not based on fact.
God gave the Second Commandment about idols. Moses wrote it down as instructed. But then if you start again by saying "how we know it wasn't man but God?" we would be going in cynical circles.
Truth be told, I am not taking offense at your questions at all. But are you?
You make question-begging claims again, in addition to ad hominem attacks. On what basis you say the Christian faith is not based on fact?
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:These words, 'God', 'rational' and 'logical' do not go together.
As I have said before, 'nothing' can imply 'nothing that is seen by the naked eye'. Don't refute that, since you like the bible, which is, at best, vague and ambiguous.
Please explain why God, rational and logical do not go together.
But I have already clarified what I meant by nothing. Even atheists and evolutionists admit that so why not you?
"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." - Alan Guth
Originally posted by Tcmc:ERROR 1
1 Kings 4:26 says “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…”
2 Chronicles 9:25 says “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…”
ERROR 2
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says “…Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and…died with him. So Saul died…”
2 Samuel 21:12 says “…the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa.”
ERROR 3
James 1:13 says “..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”
Gen 22:1 says “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…”
ERROR 4
2 Kings 8:26 says “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…” 2 Chronicles 22:2 says “Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”
ERROR 5
Matt 13:31-32: ” “the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree.” There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don’t grow into trees.
And more.
BIC, are you gonna say the errors are there for a "mysterious divine purpose"?
Nope. I'm gonna say "Not these old canards again and flogging dead horses".
Please, stick to the topic. Between the atheist and theist the issue is that of God's existence. Don't sidetrack into arguing about Bible passages.
AOD,
i just sent you a long response to your qn and it came out error...now its all gone...i will reply u still but u will have to wait...cos i have to re-type everything...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Please explain why God, rational and logical do not go together.
But I have already clarified what I meant by nothing. Even atheists and evolutionists admit that so why not you?
"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." - Alan Guth
So...God came from...where? Nothing, right?
Why can't the Universe come from Nothing if your God came from Nothing?
And, the reason why atheists and non-believers do not believe in God, is largely because of Bible-passages. So it is within topic.
Why believe in something that everyone claims true, and yet there are so many inconsistencies? Typos? Printing errors?
What more evidence do you need that the Bible was edited, is wrong?
Me, take offense..you flatter me really. I'm not. You call me a cynic, don't you? Cynics ask a lot of questions. That doesn't equal taking offense.
''So...God came from...where? Nothing, right?
Why can't the Universe come from Nothing if your God came from Nothing?''
@BIC...
I cun believe this is being mentioned again...:(
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Nope. I'm gonna say "Not these old canards again and flogging dead horses".
Please, stick to the topic. Between the atheist and theist the issue is that of God's existence. Don't sidetrack into arguing about Bible passages.
BIC
Bible passages have everything to do with the existence of the christian god. Because christians claim their god is all-knowing and is faultless, and that the bible is inspired by him, then bible passages reflect the credibility of this god claimed by christians. :)
Stark errors that you refuse to see
Originally posted by despondent:''So...God came from...where? Nothing, right?
Why can't the Universe come from Nothing if your God came from Nothing?''
@BIC...
I cun believe this is being mentioned again...:(
My sentiments exactly!
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:
So...God came from...where? Nothing, right?Why can't the Universe come from Nothing if your God came from Nothing?
And, the reason why atheists and non-believers do not believe in God, is largely because of Bible-passages. So it is within topic.
Why believe in something that everyone claims true, and yet there are so many inconsistencies? Typos? Printing errors?
What more evidence do you need that the Bible was edited, is wrong?
Me, take offense..you flatter me really. I'm not. You call me a cynic, don't you? Cynics ask a lot of questions. That doesn't equal taking offense.
God did not come from anywhere. There was never a time when God did not exist. God is eternal, i.e. He has always existed. And since God did not come from nothing, you don't have a case at all. In any case, it would be just as absurd for me to even believe that God came from nothing.
Huh? Atheists don't believe in God because of the passages in the Bible? That's most weird. Now, even if the Bible is non-existent the issue of God's existence remains. While the existence of the Bible depends on God existing, the converse is not true. Sorry but you are not left off the hook still.
Typos and printing errors are problems with PRINTING and PUBLISHING. This is not the same as saying that there are errors in the Bible when it was first written. Please make the proper distinction.
I would need evidence that the Bible has indeed been edited, i.e. evidence that words have been taken out, put in, such that we know for sure that what we have got today was not what was originally written. BTW, if there was editing, how come it did not edit out the errors and inconsistencies? Why would "editors" still allow atheists to find so-called errors? Surely it would have been ironed out by the last century ya? Either the editors suck at their jobs or there's been no editing at all.
It's good to ask questions, provided the questions have been well thought through.
hey BIC, i tot u will answer him using my analogy...but its ok...i made a stand not to reply this sort of qn anymore...:)
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Bible passages have everything to do with the existence of the christian god. Because christians claim their god is all-knowing and is faultless, and that the bible is inspired by him, then bible passages reflect the credibility of this god claimed by christians. :)
Stark errors that you refuse to see
Wrong again. Discussing the existence of God does not depend on the existence of the Bible.
Which beg the question still, have you proven the errors?
Originally posted by despondent:hey BIC, i tot u will answer him using my analogy...but its ok...i made a stand not to reply this sort of qn anymore...:)
No hard feelings bro!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:My sentiments exactly!
so you mean rain, droplets, rainbow, earthquakes, evaporation are created by god? if not, how else they are formed or happening?
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
so you mean rain, droplets, rainbow, earthquakes, evaporation are created by god? if not, how else they are formed or happening?
God created the universe and established the laws of nature which gave us rain, rainbow, evaporation etc. But before man fell into sin, there was no earthquake. we believe that all natural disasters are ultimately a consequence of man’s rebellion against God. The Bible tells us that the original creation was “very good” (Gen. 1:31)—which means perfect—and this, surely, means that the world was free from all suffering.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Wrong again. Discussing the existence of God does not depend on the existence of the Bible.
Which beg the question still, have you proven the errors?
BIC
The existence of a General "God" OR supreme being beyond our universe isnt dependent on the bible.
BUT the existence of the CHRISTIAN-BIBLE GOD, depends very much on how silly the text in the bible is.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
The existence of a General "God" OR supreme being beyond our universe isnt dependent on the bible.
BUT the existence of the CHRISTIAN-BIBLE GOD, depends very much on how silly the text in the bible is.
EXCEPT that you are merely begging the question here to claim that the Bible is silly.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:God created the universe and established the laws of nature which gave us rain, rainbow, evaporation etc. But before man fell into sin, there was no earthquake. we believe that all natural disasters are ultimately a consequence of man’s rebellion against God. The Bible tells us that the original creation was “very good” (Gen. 1:31)—which means perfect—and this, surely, means that the world was free from all suffering.
how convenient of you to attribute that to your almighty god, where the existence of your god is still debatable. utter nonsense.
honestly the big bang theory is just a theory, but if you ask me, I rather trust big bang than a book written by some unknown ancient men. yeah sure the big bang is a hypothesis but at least it attempt to explain the origin of the universe using science. It is a zillion times better than a book with so much inconsistency and paradoxes written 2012 years ago, where science and society are not advanced.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:how convenient of you to attribute that to your almighty god, where the existence of your god is still debatable. utter nonsense.
honestly the big bang theory is just a theory, but if you ask me, I rather trust big bang than a book written by some unknown ancient men. yeah sure the big bang is a hypothesis but at least it attempt to explain the origin of the universe using science. It is a zillion times better than a book with so much inconsistency and paradoxes written 2012 years ago, where science and society are not advanced.
EXCEPT that when the notion "Does God Exist?" is publicly debated, the atheist loses. See http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/why-are-so-many-atheists-losing
But check out the lame reasoning of an atheist here when it comes to losing debates. He actually thinks that even when atheists lose they still win! LOL! http://www.examiner.com/article/formal-debates-are-a-win-for-atheists
You are CONFUSED about what the Big Bang Theory is. It is NOT science. In fact, it is a piece of naturalistic explanation of origins dressed up in scientific jargon. And I don't think you know the Big problems with the Big Bang.
Do yourself a Big favour, see http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/big_bang.html and http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers
And for a non-creationist critique see http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/lerner-big-bang-never-happened.htm