GOD of the BIBLE, is The CREATOR

[Scott Mayers]

Never mind regaling me with what you've read. Irrelevant!

There's only one compulsory reading to be done here, if you're going to try to rebutt my arguments.

And that's what I'm going to ask you: have you read all the evidences given here so far?

Your question is quite revealing. And very damning.

Either you have not read the evidences given.......or, logic eludes you, too!

Or, you've read them but the logic went sailing over your head.

I can deluge you with a thousand pages of 'proof' and then DEMAND that you have the burden to read it prior to questioning me, correct? But this is a 'forum' with the idea that we interact with one another specifically. If you want ME to prove something else you asserted is somehow 'wrong' as a WHOLE, you are just being dishonest here. If I can't even BEGIN to challenge you upon the simplest initial points I've asked of you here, you are purposely being evasive and attempting to dismiss any real challenge. If you want me OR others to actually competently challenge you, why are you evading such a simple set of opening questions I have for you up front?

You necessarily require explaining how ANY source, like YOUR Bible, has special significance as a book intending to PROVE the existence of some 'god' when there are an unlimited set of other religions which also claim the identical same things of their own 'sacred' texts. I even give you charity here if you want to begin with the Judao-Christian texts but you have just dismissed me because you are certainly unwilling to take the simple questions that need to be responded to first.

Your 'bible' is a BOOK and comes later than many other texts, including the whole history of Egypt's records that came long before Judaism. In fact, I can definitively prove with better clarity that your religion is an evolution of Egypt's history (as well with many other pre-Jewish cultures).

Tell me if you expect that one must require disproving each and every possible claim that you make to demonstrate your 'proof'. If you do, then do you also retain some right to simply ADD another one if all such arguments were disproven? I'm guessing that if you have 100 arguments, that should anyone prove all 100 faulty, that you'd simply add another 100 and expect us to then DISPROVE those without end?

Is there ANY means that ANYONE could possibly DISPROVE your belief or claims with closure (with certainty, that is)?

Edited June 27, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[GostHacked]

Better review all related threads!

There is nothing to review. You have not offered up anything new.

[BubberMiley]

Your question shows that you either don't know how Muslims and Jews/Christians are on separate paths, or

logic eludes you.

No, it shows you are avoiding the question because your premise was faulty and you're embarrassed that you can't find an argument to cut and paste in here to answer my questions.

You said there is evidence the Bible is the word of the true Creator because it predicted scientific facts about the creation of the universe years and years before scientists were able to make these discoveries for themselves. You then challenged anyone to cite a book that also predicted such things.

I said the Qu'uran and provided evidence. You said the Qu'uran is the same Abrahamic God as the Bible. I then asked whether that is not evidence that the Qu'uran is also the word of God.

You responded that I don't know Muslims and Jews are on different paths than Christians or that I can't see logic.

Your case would be better if you didn't avoid answering questions and resort to insults when people challenge you.

[betsy]

I can deluge you with a thousand pages of 'proof' and then DEMAND that you have the burden to read it prior to questioning me, correct? But this is a 'forum' with the idea that we interact with one another specifically. If you want ME to prove something else you asserted is somehow 'wrong' as a WHOLE, you are just being dishonest here. If I can't even BEGIN to challenge you upon the simplest initial points I've asked of you here, you are purposely being evasive and attempting to dismiss any real challenge. If you want me OR others to actually competently challenge you, why are you evading such a simple set of opening questions I have for you up front?

You necessarily require explaining how ANY source, like YOUR Bible, has special significance as a book intending to PROVE the existence of some 'god' when there are an unlimited set of other religions which also claim the identical same things of their own 'sacred' texts. I even give you charity here if you want to begin with the Judao-Christian texts but you have just dismissed me because you are certainly unwilling to take the simple questions that need to be responded to first.

Your 'bible' is a BOOK and comes later than many other texts, including the whole history of Egypt's records that came long before Judaism. In fact, I can definitively prove with better clarity that your religion is an evolution of Egypt's history (as well with many other pre-Jewish cultures).

Tell me if you expect that one must require disproving each and every possible claim that you make to demonstrate your 'proof'. If you do, then do you also retain some right to simply ADD another one if all such arguments were disproven? I'm guessing that if you have 100 arguments, that should anyone prove all 100 faulty, that you'd simply add another 100 and expect us to then DISPROVE those without end?

Is there ANY means that ANYONE could possibly DISPROVE your belief or claims with closure (with certainty, that is)?

What deluge are you on about?

I asked you:

Did you read the evidences given so far in this thread? That's the argument here. That's all there is to it.

[betsy]

There is nothing to review. You have not offered up anything new.

So we're done, you and I.

[betsy]

No, it shows you are avoiding the question because your premise was faulty and you're embarrassed that you can't find an argument to cut and paste in here to answer my questions.

You said there is evidence the Bible is the word of the true Creator because it predicted scientific facts about the creation of the universe years and years before scientists were able to make these discoveries for themselves. You then challenged anyone to cite a book that also predicted such things.

I said the Qu'uran and provided evidence. You said the Qu'uran is the same Abrahamic God as the Bible. I then asked whether that is not evidence that the Qu'uran is also the word of God.

You responded that I don't know Muslims and Jews are on different paths than Christians or that I can't see logic.

Your case would be better if you didn't avoid answering questions and resort to insults when people challenge you.

This part is crucial:

You said the Qu'uran is the same Abrahamic God as the Bible. I then asked whether that is not evidence that the Qu'uran is also the word of God.

That's not exactly what I said.

betsy

Well, the Qu'ran's is supposed to be the Abrahamic God.....that's why they identify as an Abrahamic religion!

I didn't avoid the question.......I gave an answer: your question shows you either don't understand how the Jews and Muslims went on separate paths, or the logic is lost on you.

You said you know how they went on separate paths. If you do understand.....

......how can you even make the assumption that the Qu'ran must therefore be "God's-breath?"

Just because they say they worship the same God? That's why I said, the logic eludes you.

You didn't understand my answer, too. What more can I say?

Edited June 27, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

You didn't understand my answer, too. What more can I say?

You could start with explaining why the Qu'uran is even better at making scientific predictions than the Bible. Just look at the website I cited. If vague predictions in an ancient text are the standard for proof of the Creator, Allah is the one true God.

[Smeelious]

...

You said you know how they went on separate paths. If you do understand.....

......how can you even make the assumption that the Qu'ran must therefore be "God's-breath?"

Just because they say they worship the same God? That's why I said, the logic eludes you.

You didn't understand my answer, too. What more can I say?

I think you are missing his point. But it's a point you won't come to terms with anyway, so it's best to ignore it and move on.

What deluge are you on about?

I asked you:

Did you read the evidences given so far in this thread? That's the argument here. That's all there is to it.

Completely irrelevant. People who have read, and provided reasonable critiques and counter points, you simply brush off. Why would he bother reading them to suffer the same result. He is actually trying to get into a debate with you about the content and you don't want to, I guess?

[Scott Mayers]

What deluge are you on about?

I asked you:

Did you read the evidences given so far in this thread? That's the argument here. That's all there is to it.

"Deluge" == to flood, or overwhelm one with such depth in kind to one, such as your expectation to require others to answer ALL your supposed evidence with the requirement that we MUST go swimming in your supposed ocean of evidence you feign credibility for. You're tactic is to evade answering questions by those on the shore hoping they take a swim out to your depth so that you can 'drown' them in superfluous never exhausting claims of supposed 'evidence'. Answer the simplest question(s):

If you won't even allow me one answer intrinsic in your claims, how could anyone expect any number of 'cumulative' claims? Is there any possible evidence one could possibly present to disprove even ONE of your supposedly challenging proofs?

Edited June 27, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[GostHacked]

So we're done, you and I.

Before the thread was even started.

[Scott Mayers]

Before the thread was even started.

'She' cherry picks WHAT she will permit to be questioned.

X is required to prove Y

She will attempt to argue for some Y she feels confident of answering but not to the nature of X since it isn't in her list of 'proofs' she demands to be answered first as if this matters.

[betsy]

You could start with explaining why the Qu'uran is even better at making scientific predictions than the Bible. Just look at the website I cited. If vague predictions in an ancient text are the standard for proof of the Creator, Allah is the one true God.

If you can't give the scientific predictions they made or, make it simpler by citing the part of the article - then I'm ignoring it.

I'm not reading the website searching and making assumptions on what exactly you refer to.

Furthermore, the evidences given here are not "vague predictions." They're not prophecies!

They're simple declarations!

A statement that the universe/space is stretching....is not a prediction! It is a DESCRIPTIVE DECLARATION!

If you can't even tell the difference between a prediction and a declaration - why should I bother with your source?

The declarations given as evidences were later confirmed by science!

Edited June 30, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I think you are missing his point. But it's a point you won't come to terms with anyway, so it's best to ignore it and move on.

Completely irrelevant. People who have read, and provided reasonable critiques and counter points, you simply brush off. Why would he bother reading them to suffer the same result. He is actually trying to get into a debate with you about the content and you don't want to, I guess?

What are you doing, "feeding the troll?"

You've said nothing with your statements. They're "posture" statements - no substance!

I bet you're arguing from ignorance, too!

Edited June 30, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

"Deluge" == to flood, or overwhelm one with such depth in kind to one, such as your expectation to require others to answer ALL your supposed evidence with the requirement that we MUST go swimming in your supposed ocean of evidence you feign credibility for. You're tactic is to evade answering questions by those on the shore hoping they take a swim out to your depth so that you can 'drown' them in superfluous never exhausting claims of supposed 'evidence'. Answer the simplest question(s):

If you won't even allow me one answer intrinsic in your claims, how could anyone expect any number of 'cumulative' claims? Is there any possible evidence one could possibly present to disprove even ONE of your supposedly challenging proofs?

You've offered nothing! You talked about all the stuffs you've read.....and yet you have not read the evidences given on this thread!

If you'd read so many things - surely you would've known that science had stated that the correct term to describe the universe is not expanding, but "stretching!" For you not to know that? So spare me. I'm not interested to know what comic books you've read!

If you're a so-called "logician," as you claim to be....surely you know the basic of rational discussion:

Understand the arguments being given!

And surely....the only logical way to understand them is to at least, READ THEM!

A real logician ought to know that by heart!

Edited June 30, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

'She' cherry picks WHAT she will permit to be questioned.

X is required to prove Y

She will attempt to argue for some Y she feels confident of answering but not to the nature of X since it isn't in her list of 'proofs' she demands to be answered first as if this matters.

Corrections: I don't "cherry pick" responses. I QUALIFY them!

Why should we entertain pure bs?

Anyone who thinks they can "posture" their ignorance in a serious discussion without eventually getting caught is, delusional!

If you want to challenge my arguments, read them and address them! Simple as that.

Edited June 30, 2016 by betsy

[GostHacked]

If you want to challenge my arguments, read them and address them! Simple as that.

Your arguments have been challenged and actually your arguments have been beat. It's as simple as that.

[?Impact]

If you'd read so many things - surely you would've known that science had stated that the correct term to describe the universe is not expanding, but "stretching!"

Spare me the drama. One person writing to laymen to explain the expanding universe said that their pea brains might understand stretching easier and suddenly we have "science stated"?

99.99999999999999999999999999999% of science texts use "expanding".

[Scott Mayers]

You've offered nothing! You talked about all the stuffs you've read.....and yet you have not read the evidences given on this thread!

If you'd read so many things - surely you would've known that science had stated that the correct term to describe the universe is not expanding, but "stretching!" For you not to know that? So spare me. I'm not interested to know what comic books you've read!

If you're a so-called "logician," as you claim to be....surely you know the basic of rational discussion:

Understand the arguments being given!

And surely....the only logical way to understand them is to at least, READ THEM!

A real logician ought to know that by heart!

Like you 'read' my initial responses to you (as to others here as well) to which you opted to trivialize? Before even attempting to READ your potential list of arguments, you have the very problem you indicate in the next post here:

"Why should we entertain pur bs?

Anyone who thinks they can "posture" their ignorance in a serious discussion without getting caught is, delusional!"

"If you want to challenge my arguments, read them and address them! Simple as that."

How do you suppose that my initial response is not related to attempting to determine even what you "posture" is worthy to invest in reading when my own response IS to your initial assertion that you refuse to respond to?

You are up front asserting THAT you have such 'proof' to which I, as others, need to know WHAT you consider valid for proof first to determine that you are or are not just some 'delusional' person here. But your responses to me AND your evasion of this demonstrates you either LACK the intellectual integrity needed to look further OR that you are purposely being evasive.

The first PART of your claim is NOT your preferred list of proofs but to your claim that you even "have" a rational justification that ANY book, especially from history, can have internal capacity to "prove" something absolute and validly 'true' about an entity external to merely its content of words.

I can write a book and assert from the beginning that everything you are about to read is 'true' because I am God and that being such, I would not nor could not lie. Would you think not to ask me how the content that follows should further 'prove' my existence that an even MORE powerful entity it is about to speak of opts to use a medium (a book) that could more powerfully be 'proven' by the ever more powerful 'medium' of DIRECT PRESENTATION? We assume when you even use the word, "God", that you imply WE know that you are not simply using a term, like an algebraic, "X", to question. You are assuming we already know and believe that such an entity exists and would opt to do it in a way that ANY CON could do for willing to write such a book, that its content is even CAPABLE of validating the integrity of the very book it begs is valid.

You don't follow still?

Then I'll tell you straight forward, that I AM GOD.

I did not write nor inspire others to write, that book.

What I say here is true.

AND, if you don't believe me, invest in the time to prove that I am not ... for I am enjoying your arrogance and would love to play along.

[Pateris]

Any if the God of Abraham is the creator, then wouldn't the Qu'ran, said by HIM through his prophet Muhammad be the final word? It was not written by dozens of authors, but is the direct revelation of God. Can you say otherwise?

[betsy]

Any if the God of Abraham is the creator, then wouldn't the Qu'ran, said by HIM through his prophet Muhammad be the final word? It was not written by dozens of authors, but is the direct revelation of God. Can you say otherwise?

Do you have any proof that what Mohammad claimed was true? How do you know it's a direct revelation from God?

How can you compare Mohammad's claims with Jesus'? What supportive evidence do you have?

Jesus' life, death and resurrection were witnessed by numerous people!

The big transformation in the Apostles themselves - especially Paul - bear witness to the truth that they'd seen!

If God wants us to believe that He made changes with His claims in the Bible - He surely would've provided proofs that there has been some editing done! After all, didn't God warn us repeatedly to beware of wolves in sheep's clothings? Of false preachers and prophets?

Some of the teachings in the Qu'ran conflict with the Bible. How can God contradict His own words (without any indication that He's made big changes), and still be believed to be reliable?

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book in the world.

Throughout time, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archeology has confirmed it as historical. Opponents have attacked its teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts and teachings have had a positive influence on societies and cultures throughout the world. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science, psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written.

It is a book that has transformed countless lives and cultures throughout the last 2000 years.

No matter how its opponents try to attack, destroy, or discredit it, the Bible remains; its veracity and impact on lives is unmistakable.

The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is truly God’s Word and is supernaturally protected by Him. It should not surprise us that, no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. After all, Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31). After looking at the evidence, one can say without a doubt that, yes, the Bible is truly God’s Word.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[Pateris]

Do you have any proof that what Mohammad claimed was true? How do you know it's a direct revelation from God?

How can you compare Mohammad's claims with Jesus'? What supportive evidence do you have?

Jesus' life, death and resurrection were witnessed by numerous people!

The big transformation in the Apostles themselves - especially Paul - bear witness to the truth that they'd seen!

If God wants us to believe that He made changes with His claims in the Bible - He surely would've provided proofs that there has been some editing done! After all, didn't God warn us repeatedly to beware of wolves in sheep's clothings? Of false preachers and prophets?

Some of the teachings in the Qu'ran conflict with the Bible. How can God contradict His own words (without any indication that He's made big changes), and still be believed to be reliable?

The Qur'an states clearly it is the direct word of God. How do you know the Bible was written by those guided by God's hand? How do you explain the Gospel of Thomas?

Mohammad made no claims, other than to be the prophet of God, as he recited God's word. He led his followers to power in the desert, much as Joshua led the Israelites to conquer Jericho.

There is no independent claims of Jesus or Mohammad's life. Therefore we only have the word of their followers (who should not be trusted).

Why should I believe the followers of Jesus more than the followers of Muhammad. The latter's followers came out of the desert, and in the name of God conquered the middle east, north africa, asia minor, central asia, india, south-east asia, south-eastern europe and Spain. Their ability to do so coming from nothing in a short time should be taken as evidence of their divine guidance.

The Qur'an explains your last statement. The Qur'an recognizes the existence of the Torah and the Bible, and that they were corrupted by man. This is why God sent his last message directly through Muhammad. The Qur'an is the final revelation of God. Any conflict between the Qur'an and the Bible is due to corruption by the followers of Moses and Jesus.

[betsy]

The Qur'an states clearly it is the direct word of God.

Any textbook can claim that! Anyone can claim to have spoken to by God, or to have been appointed by God.

That's not surprising. That's in the Bible - warning people against getting deceived.

How do you know the Bible was written by those guided by God's hand?

Read the OP of this thread, and all the lists of evidences given! That's what this topic is all about!

There are only a few evidences given here.....but so far I've already listed 17 at the other forum.

Go to this link, too.

Of all the "holy books" the Bible is the only book that correctly describes the order of creation as revealed through science.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Why is it the only book to correctly describe creation? Because, God of the Bible wants to show that the Bible is indeed the Book of the Creator! He's describing His own creation! Science is a tool to prove it to the modern generation.

It seems the role of science is to glorify God, and attest to the validity of the Bible..

It's a way to eliminate all other "contenders" to the title, GOD.

Check out the other related topic.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25884-transformed/

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Like you 'read' my initial responses to you (as to others here as well) to which you opted to trivialize? Before even attempting to READ your potential list of arguments, you have the very problem you indicate in the next post here:

How do you suppose that my initial response is not related to attempting to determine even what you "posture" is worthy to invest in reading when my own response IS to your initial assertion that you refuse to respond to?

You are up front asserting THAT you have such 'proof' to which I, as others, need to know WHAT you consider valid for proof first to determine that you are or are not just some 'delusional' person here. But your responses to me AND your evasion of this demonstrates you either LACK the intellectual integrity needed to look further OR that you are purposely being evasive.

The first PART of your claim is NOT your preferred list of proofs but to your claim that you even "have" a rational justification that ANY book, especially from history, can have internal capacity to "prove" something absolute and validly 'true' about an entity external to merely its content of words.

I can write a book and assert from the beginning that everything you are about to read is 'true' because I am God and that being such, I would not nor could not lie. Would you think not to ask me how the content that follows should further 'prove' my existence that an even MORE powerful entity it is about to speak of opts to use a medium (a book) that could more powerfully be 'proven' by the ever more powerful 'medium' of DIRECT PRESENTATION? We assume when you even use the word, "God", that you imply WE know that you are not simply using a term, like an algebraic, "X", to question. You are assuming we already know and believe that such an entity exists and would opt to do it in a way that ANY CON could do for willing to write such a book, that its content is even CAPABLE of validating the integrity of the very book it begs is valid.

You don't follow still?

Then I'll tell you straight forward, that I AM GOD.

I did not write nor inspire others to write, that book.

What I say here is true.

AND, if you don't believe me, invest in the time to prove that I am not ... for I am enjoying your arrogance and would love to play along.

You confuse confidence with arrogance.........and......

......I don't want to waste my time on ignorance.

Edited July 4, 2016 by betsy

[Pateris]

Why is it the only book to correctly describe creation? Because, God of the Bible wants to show that the Bible is indeed the Book of the Creator! He's describing His own creation! Science is a tool to prove it to the modern generation.

The website you point to is a bit of a stretch on the description of creation. Two points - plate tectonics started well before the development of the water cycle - the world was far too hot in the first few hundred million years for liquid water to exist. This is why many believe water came from comets falling to earth.

Another point is that whales didn't start in the oceans - no mammal did. Mammals arose on land - the cetaceans moved from the land INTO the sea. So the Bible claiming they came first would be wrong.

The only evidence you have for your belief is the Bible itself. There is no corroborating evidence.