It is Written: "In the beginning, GOD Created the Heavens and the Earth..." Science says and maintains something very very interesting: ‘for anything to happen and/or come into being, five things must be and/or occur’: 1) TIME, 2) FORCE, 3) ACTION, 4) SPACE, and 5) MATTER. In fact, this is one of the very few consensus that all of Science can agree on. So let’s see if that general consensus of Science can also agree with THE Written WORD of GOD [“The Bibleâ€]: (TIME) “In the beginning. . .†(FORCE) “ . . . GOD. . . †(ACTION) “ . . . created. . .†(SPACE) “ . . . the Heavens. . . †(MATTER) “ . . . the Earth.†Written another way, it would look thus: “In the beginning (of TIME) GOD (’s FORCE) created (thru HIS Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent ACTION) the Heavens (in all the upper SPACES) And the Earth (as well as all other MATTER).†Now, No critic nor unbeliever of "The Bible", can argue nor disprove that one verse . . . the very first verse in Scripture!!! “All Scripture†[The Bible, The Tanakh, etc.] claims to be and contains THE “Inspired†WORD of GOD. And until someone(s) can prove otherwise, using only the prescribed methods we use today in order to determine “Guiltâ€, Atheists, Agnostics, and other Critics must come up with a better argument than the one that they've attempted until now. So then, if you and/or someone you know of can Disprove " In the beginning GOD created the Heavens and the earth.†Beyond any shadow of a doubt, then by all means drop me a line; or better yet, Write a Book. Nevertheless, Remember, you'll need to produce an Eyewitness [someone with the Credibility and Notoriety of, say maybe, a “Moses (The human author of Genesis.)â€] And/or Tangible Evidence [how about a document that can predate the happenings of Genesis 1:1, “the beginning (The Starts point of Genesis.)â€], proving otherwise.
interesting that this is your first post...and by the use of your capital letters are you implying that God is a male??? p.s. although attributed to Moses, its pretty well known that Moses probably didn't write the first 5 books, Genesis is an easy enough example as it has two creation accounts written in very different styles, one of the priestly tradition and one of the deuteronomist tradition..
I'm sorry. This does not prove that it did happen as the Bible says it did. It only shows that that particular line out of the Bible is plausible according to Scientific rules of understanding. The Bible still requires faith.
As one Rabbi put it (and I love the wording) "God IS. God is the Isness of is. It is we who are not something, it is we that fall short of his greater being. We cannot define him, he defines us" and yet the Rabbi also used the masculin verb. The god of Abraham is traditionally depicted in the masculine, even in the original Hebrew of the old Testimate. This is despite the fact that God created the universe, a role traditionally feminine and motherly in religion (see: Gaia). God is often named a "Father" and through much of the Bible his style for guiding his chosen children children seems closest to the traditional parenting role of a father, rather than that of a mother. Normally distant, commanding, and instructing, close only when tending to a wound, or protecting from a threat (such as when God personally guided his people out of Egypt). There is also the fact that 'power' is considered by most western cultures to be a male element, and thus a single omnipotent diety would more naturally seem male to most. However these, even the extrapolation of a parenting style on my part are all attempts of man to assign a gender that is part of our "is not" to the "Is" of God. To try to demystify and define a being that is beyond our full comprehension.
Who then, would you attribute the human authorship of The Torah to??? And there are no "two creation accounts"...Creation cannot be re-created. BTW, can you disprove Genesis 1:1???
Okay, I get it now, you're one of those " down low " believers (Christian); nobody knows that you're a believer but you, huh? Well not to worry Josh (if that is your real name), your secret is safe with me . Give my regards to "M", "N", "O", "P", and "Q"!
You said: "Nothing is proven here, just semantics." I say: If "just sematics" is "proven here", then it must be the something that the "nothing" is not applicable to, huh? It is written: "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.(Jas. 1:8)"
You said: "Nothing is proven here, just semantics ." I say: If "just sematics" is "proven here", then it must be the something that the "nothing" is not applicable to, huh? It is written: "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.(Jas. 1:8)"
"Nothing is proven here, just semantics." means---> Notiing is proven here. You are just playing with semantics. Funny that you would again use semantics to twist the meaning of something. I could not have proved my point better if I typed your replies myself.
The bible probably does contain the word of God. Trouble is,its been re-written time and time again,so who know how accurate it is.
I would like this sourced, if you don't mind. That statement is contradictory, as far as I can tell, since in order for action to occur, action would be necessary by the logic of the statement. Furthermore, Big Bang theory posits time as part of the original singularity of the universe, being 'created' along with it. I'm really not all too sure what you mean by either force or action, or where science declares those rather vague concepts necessary. You need to define what exactly you mean so I can understand where you're coming from. You can most definitely interpret it that way. That won't make it true, coherent, or logical, nor will it give me a reason to believe it. Nor do they have to. The burden lies directly upon YOU, as the person affirming the claim that this passage is true, to prove that it is. Until that is done, accepting your argument is unreasonable. Secondly, by that logic, you have to accept the Koran as logically accurate unless you can directly disprove it, and then you would have to do likewise with every religious text in existence. Since you cannot, you have to believe them all, which is absurdly contradictory. In other words, if I have to disprove the Bible to be an atheist, you have to disprove every other religion in existence to be a Christian. Thirdly, even within the context of an omnipotent, omnipresent God, there are literally infinite possibilities for what the nature of that God could be. Heck, there are millions of interperetations even within Judaism and Christianity. Even if I accept that a God of some sort made the universe, I have no way of knowing which God did it, and therefore no way to know which religious group to follow or trust. From this point, you would have to give me direct, factual evidence for your God's existence anyway, since I would otherwise be forced to literally guess or choose which God sounds the best, making me wrong far more often than not. Fourthly, the Bible has been retranslated and reinterpereted countless times throughout the century, so I have no way of knowing if the specific version of the text used by you is the most factually correct one or not. You could very well still be wrong even if you can show that a God exists, meaning you must also show how your text is more accurate than the others, even those within your own religion. Fine. It CLAIMS to be the word of God just like Geico claims to be able to save 15% on my car insurance. That doesn't make it true. The logical result of having to disprove a claim before denying instead of having to prove it before accepting leads to absurd inconsistencies. I have to accept the claims of every advertized product on television, for starters. In direct response to religion, I have to accept all of them because they all claim to be directly inspired or taught by the divine. I can't disprove the Koran either, and I don't have time to refute every tribal religion ever brought into existence. According to your logic, this means I must accept them all. Second, you don't even tell me the flaws in the 'typical' atheist arguments or why they are flawed. This means that not only have you failed to provide an adequate refutation to them, but according to YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, every single one of them is right since they haven't been disproven. Third, since there are hundreds of Christian groups and at least several (not sure exactly) Jewish ones, the Bible doesn't give me enough evidence to believe in one specific version of God even if I accept ALL of it. This means I won't know what the "Word of God" says unless there is specific evidence for one interperetation being better than the others, evidenc which you've failed to provide. Not only is it not my job to do that, but you can't do that with anyone else's religious works (or even the Big Bang Theory). According to your painfully flawed logic, every last one is true, which is quite a logical paradox. Furthermore, it is YOUR job, as the person claiming God exists, to provide DIRECT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of His existence. The Bible is far from empirical and even further from direct. Since you don't show me evidence for your claim that God created everything, I cannot logically accept it. Neither can you, though that obviously hasn't been a problem. Firstly, you would have to prove that Moses was an eyewitness, independent of a religious book saying he is. If you just get to claim an eyewitness who authored Genesis independent of evidence showing he was there, an eyewitness, or an author, then fine. I was there before Moses and you are lying. According to you, since you can't disprove me, I'm right. Furthermore, older documents than Genesis have been found in several ancient civilizations, some of which DIRECTLY contradict Genesis as other religious texts. If you want age in religion, try Hinduism. Not only that, but a lack of evidence on your part constitutes tangible evidence on my part. Since you have nothing, historic or otherwise, showing that any of this is true, and since you haven't told me where your empirical evidence would be so I can find it, the evidence points to your argument being false. Quite frankly, this is one of the worst arguments for God I have ever seen. How many times did you misplace the burden of proof? It got annoying after about three. And PLEASE quit using all of those font changes! My eyes are bleeding!
So then, your implication is that GOD is not GOD enough to Maintain the Integrity of HIS WORD, regardless of how many times its been translated??? Here's a novel thought: If you're really serious about THE WORD of GOD, HE'LL make certain that you get THE TRUE STORY! HE'S OMNISCIENT & 0MNIPOTENT , THAT WAY!
You go to entirely too much trouble to say absolutely nothing; have you ever heard of "Parsimony"? Fine, you find the argument to be whatever you find it to be. Move on. Its a shame that you'd spend so much time and money on Ed-u-ma-kshun and won't bother to invest $50.00 in a good Study Bible. Limit your inquiries to Just (only) questions and I'll be happy to answer each and every one of them. But I will not attempt to do so by sifting through all this garbage you wrote previously. BTW, If you don't like my font changes then need I tell you what you can do regarding my posts?
Not probable Moses wrote those 5 books. You would get ridiculed by even the most liberal archaeologists.
I can't argue with this. BUT. I can make a very just comment. IF YOU WORD ANYTHING IN A PARTICULAR WAY YOU CAN SAY IT TO BE TRUE. -Words of Wisdom PPD Champ.THE ALMIGHTY. STEALER
Actually, I said quite a bit. It isn't MY fault you don't have a response to any of it. As far as parsimony goes, that's one of the reasons I reject your God. How about I don't move on until I point out that your argument is horrendously flawed in every way imaginable. It's a shame that you don't care about 'Ed-u-ma-kshun' or actually thinking and would rather retreat into your ideological shell and pretend flaws in your thinking don't exist. I've read the bible, and I disagree with it a lot, so 'Go read t3h bible!!!!111one!' isn't a response. In other words, you can't answer even ONE of the numerous points I made showing the fallacy in your arguments so you'll dismiss them as 'garbage' without reading any of them. Sure. Retreat into your make-believe world and pretend your argument is solid. Anyone who can think will see the holes in it. You wanted questions? Fine. I'll rephrase my arguments as questions. Take your sweet time answering them. I'll wait. 1) Where does science say ‘for anything to happen and/or come into being, five things must be and/or occur’: 1) TIME, 2) FORCE, 3) ACTION, 4) SPACE, and 5) MATTER?' 2) What do each of these five terms actually mean (specific definitions)? 3) Why is God the only thing that can possibly create the universe if this is true? 4) If matter had to come into being and matter is needed for anything to come into being, isn't that statement contradictory? 5) Don't you have the burden of proof since you're the one claiming God exists? 6) If we have to believe something until it is proven, don't we have to believe that every religion's God exists instead of just one? 7) If number 6 is false, why should I accept your God instead of one of theirs? 8) Since there are some Christians that believe God has certain qualities, but others who believe he has different qualities, why should I believe one group of Christians over another? 9) If God exists, why can't you show me evidence that He exists? 10) Since the Bible has been translated a lot, how do we know the translation we're using is right? 11) How is the Bible claiming to be the word of God evidence that it is? Doesn't the Koran claim the same thing? 12) What are the flaws in the 'typical' atheist arguments you talk about in your first post, and why are they flaws? 13) If I have to disprove the Bible even though you haven't shown why it's right, don't you have to disprove my argument that God doesn't exist before you can say it's wrong? 14) Why is your interpretation of the Bible more correct than other interpretations? 15) How can you prove that Moses was an eyewitness? 16) How do you respond to the claims made in religions and documents that predate the Bible? 17) If there isn't any evidence for God, but evidence for God would be seen if He existed, doesn't that mean that God doesn't exist? It really doesn't matter. I just get annoyed at having to format the same post eight times.
NO! Actually what you did is say quite a bit of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...and most of that was Redundant. You really should try reading all of my previous post in this Thread, before feebly attempting to react to just the one. The following will answer any and all of your questions and will squash (if you're honest) any doubts that you may have. But know this for certain: I have everything to gain by believing GOD, and absolutely nothing to lose, even if you're correct in your Atheistic belief. You, on the other hand, have everything to lose by your "unbelief", if I am correct about GOD; and at best, you can only become worm food, even if you're correct and I'm wrong. You can't dispel, nor even rationally dispute any of the assertions that I have made in this Thread...I know it, and everybody here knows it; but you seem to be the only one here unable to comprehend just how UN-ARGURABLE, "In the beginning GOD created the Heavens and the Earth". Try, very hard to grasp the following: Why should I 'sorce' it? If the 'source' is someone that you have learned from, and have placed your faith in/on, will you still find "that statement is contradictory"? Question(s): What action(s) occurs when nothing is occuring? If "time" was "part of the singularity of the universe, being created along with it", then WHO Created it? Force:GOD (LIGHT, LIFE, A CONSUMING FIRE, LOVE,Creator and Sustainer of all that HE Chooses to be, etc.) Action: That which occurs as a result of the movement of THE UNCAUSED CAUSE...or even a caused cause. Now, I understand that you cannot understand where I'm coming from for two distinct and obvious reasons: 1) You can't understand being a dog because you are not a dog, nor were you born one. Ergo, you cannot comprehend because you are not [born of] THE ONE WHO Dictated "In the beginning GOD Created the Heavens and the Earth", and then proceeded to MAKE IT HAPPEN. 2) And you most definitely cannot, nor will you (in this lifetime) understand, because the very thing [THE WORD of GOD ("The Bible")] that would give you a sembalance of the understanding that you are so severely lacking, is the one thing that you keep rejecting. And here's something that all you brilliant atheists seem to miss, The GOD that you say doen't exist, has given just ONE INITIAL PROOF to mankind that HE DOES EXIST! And do you know what that is? That's right, ITS HIS WORD, Genius. In other words, GOD IS, right now making a bigger fool out of atheists than they already are. How? By causing them to reject the ONE INITIAL thing that anybody who has ever Believed on and/or had an encounter with GOD has had to deal with FIRST and FOREMOST: HIS WORD!!! Here's what I mean: You cannot unhear something. Whether you remember it or not, if it were audible to your particular ability to hear (like sign language, etc., for examples) it, then you heard it; and what sends a person to The Biblical Hell is REJECTION and UNBELIEF of THE WORD of GOD! And here the Awesome thing about what I've just told you: You can only ACCEPT and BELIEVE in/ON THE WORD of GOD. . .by HEARING (Romans 10:17ff) It! See, Genius, you and I control nothing. We call absolutely no shots when it come to GOD. Its HIS WAY or the Hell way. HE has nothing to prove because you and I CANNOT disprove HIM! One hundred years from now, even if you're right today. . .what will you, then, have to show for it? Oh yeah, you atheists have everything to prove. And if you had read the Original Post with even the smallest amount of elementary understanding, then you might have noted and understood the following: 1) The Statement (not the Original Document that it was written on) predates any and all eyewitnesses and/or evidences that you, I, or anyone else has heard of. 2) The Statement is a very Valid Assumption of Truth, because no one can and will prove otherwise. And because of this rock solid and logical reasoning, any person believing this statement to be True (and Factual) can safely rely on it to be so. 3) A 'Lie', just like "Guilt", has to be proven ('Assumed Truth', just like "Assumed Innocence", doesn't have be). Ergo, and once again, the burden of proof is on you atheists and the rest of your ilk; otherwise you're all still just an empty wagon making a lot of noise. Did you know: The "Koran" (nor ANY other "religious" text) doesnt start at "the beginning", nor does it end with "the end of time". The Quo'ran ("Koran") quite often References "The Bible". . .but "The Bible" NEVER references the Quo'ran. No other ("religious") work in existence has a god who "In the beginning...created the Heavens and the Earth", and then goes on to tell us HOW HE DID IT! Now, I will be happy to answer and legitimate questions that you may have, but I will not argue/debate with you about GOD Nor HIS WORD, which you obviously know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING About. It is too much like me arguing/debating my infant son, about the menu for his noon time feeding. BTW, GOD wouldn't be much of THE GOD if HE couldn't keep THE TRUTH of HIS DICTATED WORD in tact throughout the years and all the various Translations, huh? Yeah, men Scribed it and men even Translated it but THE OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT AND OMNIPRESENT GOD, controlled, and controls every "jot and tittle" of it. . .Why??? BECAUSE ITS HIS WORD, genius! And here's the Spiritual Math that you'll REMEMBER through ALL ETERNITY (either in Heaven or Hell): JESUS CHRIST + nothing = EVERYTHING !
I'm sure you won't believe me but honestly I would love to believe in God. It would be a nice feeling to know that when I died I just wouldn't be gone forever going to a place where I can do (practically) anything I want, have anything, etc. But if you're going to convince people why not argue back his points? All of his 15 (or so) questions were very valid and very interesting but all you can do is call his names, call everything he says garbage. How is someone like me, an Agnostic, or others out there supposed to even think of becoming Christian when some people that believe in God act rude, offer to answer any questions but pick and choose which ones they answer (and with you, not actually answering any)? I'm not saying a lot of Christians are like this (there are a few rude ones I know but mostly the biggest believers avoid/don't actually answer any of my questions, but for the most part nice) but in your case I don't know what you are trying to achieve except to slam and name call those that don't believe in God. If you want to try and tell people the teachings of god or whatever, Nehemiah, it wouldn't hurt to be nice, at least try to answer questions (though no disrespect I have a good hundred plus questions I know no christian, unfortunately, will not answer) and not slam people because they are atheist or any other religion.