Why Trust the Bible?

[blackbird]

21 minutes ago, taxme said:

 

The story about Noah and the flood makes no sense to me at all. How can one man be able to retrieve a pair of every kind of mammal, bird, and insect from all over the world, when he most likely didn't know how big the world was and to how many different types of animal and bird life was out there? Did he know that there were polar bears in the Arctic, and there were tigers in the jungles of India? How many species of birds did he know was out there? And say he did get all the animal, bird and insect life into his boat, which had to be massive, and then he would have to stock up on food for all those species in order for them to survive for forty days while they drifted around in the ocean until the rains stopped, and some how waited for god to be was able to make all that water disappear enough to be able to put all those animals back from whence they came. 

That alone tells me that the bible is full of nonsense stories that cannot be believed.   

You are not aware of the fact the Bible is a supernatural book and a record of supernatural events that were done by God.  Of course you can't apply human reasoning and look for earthly explanations for supernatural events.  So Noah's flood, as well as other supernatural occurrences in the Bible, can only be understood as miraculous occurrences.  Why did God choose to perform these supernatural events?

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.  Where is the wise?  where is the scribe?  where is the disputer of this world?  hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness:"  1 Corinthians ch1: 19-23

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  1 Corinthians 2:14

[betsy]

59 minutes ago, taxme said:

 

The story about Noah and the flood makes no sense to me at all. How can one man be able to retrieve a pair of every kind of mammal, bird, and insect from all over the world, when he most likely didn't know how big the world was and to how many different types of animal and bird life was out there? Did he know that there were polar bears in the Arctic, and there were tigers in the jungles of India? How many species of birds did he know was out there? And say he did get all the animal, bird and insect life into his boat, which had to be massive, and then he would have to stock up on food for all those species in order for them to survive for forty days while they drifted around in the ocean until the rains stopped, and some how waited for god to be was able to make all that water disappear enough to be able to put all those animals back from whence they came. 

That alone tells me that the bible is full of nonsense stories that cannot be believed.   

 

Where does it say in the Bible that Noah went hunting for them?

 

Genesis 6

²⁰ Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

 

Actually, those questions have been dealt with in the other topic, "These So-Called "Contradictions."  I'll repost my answer:

 

I suppose the key phrase would be " according to its KIND."  That specification is repeated 10 times in Genesis.

What does God mean when He said, "according to its kind?"  We don't know exactly.  The designation of "kind" might even be broader than species (there are about 400 dog breeds belonging to one species).  Maybe, "kind" refers to genus.

 

The Polar Bear belongs to the genus Ursus. 

 

Quote

Ursus is a genus in the family Ursidae (bears) that includes the widely distributed brown bears,^[3] the polar bear,^[4] and black bears. The name is derived from the Latin ursus, meaning bear.^[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursus_(genus)

 

 

Furthermore....

 

Where does it say in the Bible that the animals were full-grown?

 

 

The Biblical cubit in our own standard of measurement is estimated to be 18 inches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit

Based on that measurement, that would make the ark 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

 

Quote

 

Using the most conservative estimate available for the length of the cubit (17.5 inches), Whitcomb and Morris have shown that the ark would have been 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. In its three decks (Genesis 6:16), it had a total area of approximately 95,700 square feet—the equivalent of slightly more than twenty standard basketball courts. Its total volume would have been about 1,396,000 cubic feet. The gross tonnage (a measurement of cubic space rather than weight, one ton being equivalent to 100 cubic feet of usable storage space) was about 13,960 tons (p. 10).

 

The ark, just like the S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien, was not built for speed (it had nowhere to go!). But it did need to be reliable—since it would have to withstand pounding waves and whipping winds on the open seas for approximately a year.

For the sake of realism, imagine waiting at a railroad crossing while ten freight trains, each pulling 52 boxcars, move slowly by, one after another. That is how much space was available in the Ark, for its capacity was equivalent to 520 modern railroad stock cars. A barge of such gigantic size, with its thousands of built-in compartments (Gen. 6:14) would have been sufficiently large to carry two of every species of air-breathing animal in the world today (and doubtless the tendency toward taxonomic splitting has produced more “species” than can be justified in terms of Genesis “kinds”) on only half of its available deck space.

 

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1413

 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by betsy

[Omni]

This is simple to answer using just the Bible to provide the answer. Absolutely no scientific knowledge is needed to answer your question.

So get out your copy of the Bible, a pad of paper, and something to write notes with. Turn to Genesis, chapter 1.

Chapter 1 of the Bible says that God created all of the animals. God did this in verses 20 through 25. Check your bible and confirm what I am saying is true. Write down the verses and days they happened on, with a note that God creates the animals and fish and birds in these verses of chapter 1.

Still in chapter 1, read on to chapter 1, verse 27. This is where God creates Humans. In verse 27 God creates man and woman, in his image, at the same time. Make sure you note this down.

You have just shown that God created all the animals and then created humans as his crowning achievement. Animals first, man and woman second.

OK, now start a second sheet for chapter 2. In chapter 2, verse 7 god creates man out of the dirt. Just man alone, no woman. Keep noting down these important ‘facts’ from your Bible, and their order.

Continuing in chapter 2, God sees man is lonely and so God starts to make all of the animals from the dirt for man. This is verses 18 and 19 in chapter 2.

All of the animals have a companion of their own, but the man is still alone. God puts the man (in chapter 2 he gets a name: Adam) to sleep and God takes a rib from Adam. God makes woman from Adam’s rib.This happens in chapter 2 , verses 22 and 23.

You have just shown that God created man first, all of the animals second, and woman third.

Have you noted down everything from the Bible? Have you satisfied yourself that I am not making this up and this is exactly what your Bible tells you?

You have two sets of ‘facts’ from your Bible:

1.       The Bible tells you that God created all of the animals first, and then on a later day created man and woman at the same time.

2.      The Bible tells you that God created man (alone), then created all of the animals, and then created woman.

It is, of course, impossible that both of these things can be true.

It could be that one or the other is true. It could be that neither is true. These stories may just be ancient fables used to teach lessons (as most Christians believe).

However, it is absolutely impossible for both chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis to both be true.

You have just proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that not everything in the Bible is true.

This is the answer to your question. How can it be that the Earth took billions of years to form when the Bible says that it happened in one day?

How can that be? Well, because your Bible tells you so. That’s why.

It can be, because, as your Bible clearly tells you, not everything in the Bible is true. Your Bible has shown you, in the first 2 chapters, that you must not take everything in the Bible to be true as you read through it.

It can be because your Bible, itself, tells you that the Bible is not completely true.

[betsy]

29 minutes ago, Omni said:

This is simple to answer using just the Bible to provide the answer. Absolutely no scientific knowledge is needed to answer your question.

So get out your copy of the Bible, a pad of paper, and something to write notes with. Turn to Genesis, chapter 1.

Chapter 1 of the Bible says that God created all of the animals. God did this in verses 20 through 25. Check your bible and confirm what I am saying is true. Write down the verses and days they happened on, with a note that God creates the animals and fish and birds in these verses of chapter 1.

Still in chapter 1, read on to chapter 1, verse 27. This is where God creates Humans. In verse 27 God creates man and woman, in his image, at the same time. Make sure you note this down.

You have just shown that God created all the animals and then created humans as his crowning achievement. Animals first, man and woman second.

OK, now start a second sheet for chapter 2. In chapter 2, verse 7 god creates man out of the dirt. Just man alone, no woman. Keep noting down these important ‘facts’ from your Bible, and their order.

Continuing in chapter 2, God sees man is lonely and so God starts to make all of the animals from the dirt for man. This is verses 18 and 19 in chapter 2.

All of the animals have a companion of their own, but the man is still alone. God puts the man (in chapter 2 he gets a name: Adam) to sleep and God takes a rib from Adam. God makes woman from Adam’s rib.This happens in chapter 2 , verses 22 and 23.

You have just shown that God created man first, all of the animals second, and woman third.

Have you noted down everything from the Bible? Have you satisfied yourself that I am not making this up and this is exactly what your Bible tells you?

You have two sets of ‘facts’ from your Bible:

1.       The Bible tells you that God created all of the animals first, and then on a later day created man and woman at the same time.

2.      The Bible tells you that God created man (alone), then created all of the animals, and then created woman.

It is, of course, impossible that both of these things can be true.

It could be that one or the other is true. It could be that neither is true. These stories may just be ancient fables used to teach lessons (as most Christians believe).

However, it is absolutely impossible for both chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis to both be true.

You have just proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that not everything in the Bible is true.

This is the answer to your question. How can it be that the Earth took billions of years to form when the Bible says that it happened in one day?

How can that be? Well, because your Bible tells you so. That’s why.

It can be, because, as your Bible clearly tells you, not everything in the Bible is true. Your Bible has shown you, in the first 2 chapters, that you must not take everything in the Bible to be true as you read through it.

It can be because your Bible, itself, tells you that the Bible is not completely true.

 

No contradictions.

 

Genesis 1 provides the chronological listing of creation....whereas Genesis 2 is a recap.

Just read the first few verses in Genesis 2, in which the recap is stated:

Genesis 2

  Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.  ² And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. ³ Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

⁴ This is the history^[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

 

Then Moses went into detail about the garden of Eden, and the creation of Adam and Eve, all the way from verses 7 thru 24!

 

Quote

 

At first glance this seems to be a contradiction because Genesis 1 has the animals and trees created prior to the creation of man; however, both issues can be resolved by an understanding of the original language and the translation process.2 The Hebrew word for formed in both passages is yatsar. The New King James Version (quoted above) translates the verb in its perfect form.

However, this Hebrew word may also be translated in its pluperfect form. In this case, it would read that God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it (e.g. ESV, NIV, etc.) For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states:

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. (emphasis mine)

This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week. This would mean that the plants (Genesis 2:9) and the animals (Genesis 2:19) had already been formed by God earlier in Creation Week. William Tyndale was the first to translate an English Bible directly from the original languages,3 and He also translated the verb in its pluperfect form.

And after that the Lord God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names. (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19)

 

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by betsy

[Omni]

Whatever interpretation suits your whim is fine by me.

[betsy]

12 hours ago, Omni said:

Whatever interpretation suits your whim is fine by me.

 

It's amazing how some folks would quibble over something like this, and yet does not consider that it's the same Book that gives the same truth.  Some truths have been recently proven, and reaffirmed by science.

 

And....it's amazing how some folks can easily swallow macroevolution when it's riddled with so many holes - it doesn't even have any evidence to stand on.   Whatever tickles their fancy I suppose......

Edited May 26, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

Atheists allegedly rely on science (or, that's what they want to say) - so I try to meet them at their comfort zone. 

I try to show that science lend support for the Bible.......and science have not factually disproven anything from the Bible.

While debating in another forum about the difference between man and animals (Genesis), the atheist (quite incoherent, and obviously stabbing in the dark), wondered why God hadn't spoken man into existence the same way He did animals.  Of course, I had to review Genesis 1.  Reading Genesis again, gave me other arguments to point out.

 

 

Genesis 1

²⁰ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 

  Moving creatures that has life,  came to life in the water.  Does that strikes a chord with Darwinists?

 

 

 

²¹ And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

If you look at it from an evolution point of view - that one, too.   Don't they say that creatures transitioned from water to land?  "....every living creature that moveth,  which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,"

Why is creation of birds  included in those two sentences from the two verses,  "and  every winged fowl!"

Doesn't evolution say, from fish to birds? 

 

 

²² And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

²³ And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

²⁴ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

²⁵ And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

 

Unlike the creation of other creatures, God got actively involved in the creation of man.  He formed him from dust and breathed life into him (Genesis 2 for details).

  "....male and female created he them."

Take note that it's only with man that God designated genders of male and female.  He didn't designate any genders for His other creation. 

We know that some creatures  are "asexual."

 

 

²⁸ And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Don't we have dominion? 

All we have to do is look at our pets, the zoo, the farm......animals even rely on us to protect and save them from extinction!

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by betsy

[Omni]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

 

It's amazing how some folks would quibble over something like this, and yet does not consider that it's the same Book that gives the same truth.  Some truths have been recently proven, and reaffirmed by science.

 

And....it's amazing how some folks can easily swallow macroevolution when it's riddled with so many holes - it doesn't even have any evidence to stand on.   Whatever tickles their fancy I suppose......

I don't really quibble I've just made a choice. Let's see science was generated by man. The bible was generated by man. But before science is accepted it must be able to be proven and replicated. That's why I chose it.

[taxme]

22 hours ago, blackbird said:

You are not aware of the fact the Bible is a supernatural book and a record of supernatural events that were done by God.  Of course you can't apply human reasoning and look for earthly explanations for supernatural events.  So Noah's flood, as well as other supernatural occurrences in the Bible, can only be understood as miraculous occurrences.  Why did God choose to perform these supernatural events?

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.  Where is the wise?  where is the scribe?  where is the disputer of this world?  hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness:"  1 Corinthians ch1: 19-23

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  1 Corinthians 2:14

The only thing that I can say that is good about the bible is the ten commandments. Other than that, all else is up for interpretation. I gave up decades ago of reading and trying to figure out what god was trying to say. Why there are even parts in the bible that can be associated with UFO's. As was explained in regards to UFO's there are many sayings that one can associate to UFO's. I believe that it is in and if one read Ezekiel one would find that what is being said can be related to what we know today as rockets. But hey.  

[taxme]

22 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Where does it say in the Bible that Noah went hunting for them?

 

Genesis 6

²⁰ Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

 

Actually, those questions have been dealt with in the other topic, "These So-Called "Contradictions."  I'll repost my answer:

 

I suppose the key phrase would be " according to its KIND."  That specification is repeated 10 times in Genesis.

What does God mean when He said, "according to its kind?"  We don't know exactly.  The designation of "kind" might even be broader than species (there are about 400 dog breeds belonging to one species).  Maybe, "kind" refers to genus.

 

The Polar Bear belongs to the genus Ursus. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursus_(genus)

 

 

Furthermore....

 

Where does it say in the Bible that the animals were full-grown?

 

 

The Biblical cubit in our own standard of measurement is estimated to be 18 inches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit

Based on that measurement, that would make the ark 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

 

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1413

 

 

So, why have the story of Noah in the bible at all? If there is a god, and he created heaven and earth and all life on it, than why did he need Noah at all? He could have just destroyed everything and start all over again. Just like one would create a program on the computor, and than delete that program, and than start up a new program. God did not need Noah to do what he already had created. He is God, he did not need the help of any human. No human helped god create the world or the universe. 

Sorry, but it will take a lot more convincing by you to make me believe that what the bible says are the words of god. 

[betsy]

4 hours ago, Omni said:

I don't really quibble I've just made a choice. Let's see science was generated by man. The bible was generated by man. But before science is accepted it must be able to be proven and replicated. That's why I chose it.

 

Huh.  Imagine that. 

After being observed and analyzed.....science had reaffirmed some of the statements in a Book that was "generated by men".....verbally passed, and finally written thousands of years ago!

 

 

 

 

 

[betsy]

13 minutes ago, taxme said:

So, why have the story of Noah in the bible at all? If there is a god, and he created heaven and earth and all life on it, than why did he need Noah at all? He could have just destroyed everything and start all over again. Just like one would create a program on the computor, and than delete that program, and than start up a new program. God did not need Noah to do what he already had created. He is God, he did not need the help of any human. No human helped god create the world or the universe. 

Sorry, but it will take a lot more convincing by you to make me believe that what the bible says are the words of god. 

 

I'm not trying to convince you, Taxme. 

Since you took the trouble to ask, I'm just answering your questions...... and pointing out some things that are actually in-lined with evolution (if you're looking at it from an evolutionist' point of view).

Take it, or leave it.

Edited May 26, 2017 by betsy

[taxme]

25 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

I'm not trying to convince you, Taxme. 

Since you took the trouble to ask, I'm just answering your questions...... and pointing out some things that are actually in-lined with evolution (if you're looking at it from an evolutionist' point of view).

Take it, or leave it.

I am just trying to point out some of the sillyness that the bible has to offer us. A very confusing book if there ever was one. I will leave it for now, and continue to ask what I believe are good questions to ask concerning all the passages in the bible. Betsy, I am going to need a lot more convincing alright before I can believe anything that is written in the bible.  

[betsy]

16 hours ago, taxme said:

The only thing that I can say that is good about the bible is the ten commandments. Other than that, all else is up for interpretation.

 

That depends. 

It's not all "up to interpretations."  Interpretations will have to be consistent, and not in any way contradict anything in the Scriptures, otherwise it's false interpretation.  In-depth study of the Bible is actually necessary to help you discern true from false interpretations.

  I recommend a  KJV Bible-Study Bible.  The one I have also includes explanation about customs of the time that's reflected on particular verses.

 

Furthermore, some statements in the Bible that appeared to be figures of speech, turned out that they can be taken literally (after having been reaffirmed by science).

 

It all boils down to your true purpose why you read the Bible. 

Btw, out of curiousity......why did you read the Bible?  What were you hoping to gain?

 

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

15 hours ago, taxme said:

I am just trying to point out some of the sillyness that the bible has to offer us. A very confusing book if there ever was one. I will leave it for now, and continue to ask what I believe are good questions to ask concerning all the passages in the bible. Betsy, I am going to need a lot more convincing alright before I can believe anything that is written in the bible.  

 

I look forward to your future questions.  Hopefully, my replies would  actually be addressed, and discussed........

........not to be simply met with deflection, and ignored,  like as if no point was presented at all.

 

While I understand how a skeptic or an outright non-believer would want more "convincing," ( I surely hope performing miracles is not the kind of convincing  expected from me, nor the actual appearance by God, required).......

 

.............while I don't mind questions at all,

 

I, on the other hand, am going to need a lot more substance coming from anyone whose questions are tinged with mockery and ridicule - to at least be able to address the particular point that have been presented.  That's only expected - a basic requirement to have a healthy discussion between adults, especially when one decides to venture in a section such as Philosophy/Theology.

 

In other words, if you come to me with a challenge - particularly, a mocking challenge -  back it up.

  Be prepared to discuss! 

If one cannot make any refutation,  or give any reasonable (rational) rebuttal......or even try..... at least,  admit to it.

 

Before you leave, I hope you read my post above, and below about Genesis  (which can be related to evolution - seen from an evolutionist's pov).

 

 

(note: some of the points I gave above about Genesis (evolution angle), has been quite a "revelation" to me, too.....as I tried to respond to an atheist in the other forum). 

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

 Oh, I know I mentioned the snake in Genesis too,  sometime ago, somewhere -  how it also seems to tie up with the claim that snakes used to have limbs!

 

 

Quote

 

The first four-legged fossil snake ever found is forcing scientists to rethink how snakes evolved from lizards.

Although it has four legs, Tetrapodophis amplectus has other features that clearly mark it as a snake, says Nick Longrich, a palaeontologist at the University of Bath, UK, and one of the authors of a paper describing the animal in Science¹.

The creature’s limbs were probably not used for locomotion, the researchers say, but rather for grasping prey, or perhaps for holding on to mating partners. Such speculation inspired the snake’s name, which loosely translates as ‘four-legged hugging snake’.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/four-legged-fossil-snake-is-a-world-first-1.18050

 

Why on earth would the snake decide to lose its limbs when it makes it easier to grasp food? 

You can't hold your prey ......is that a good thing?

 

 

Quote

Mystery of how snakes lost their legs solved by reptile fossil

https://phys.org/news/2015-11-mystery-snakes-lost-legs-reptile.html#jCp

 

Now, why would you want to lose your legs?  Is that for the better? Would that be "moving forward?"

 

 

Funny thing,

science only discovers the alleged "evolution" of snakes (and really,  what happened to snakes wouldn't be considered a positive thing for the specie).......

.................what's been known for thousands of years ago - the Bible had already implied that the serpent (snake) used to have limbs, or legs, or whatever they used to have.  Genesis 3 reveals that the snake didn't used to crawl on its belly!

 

Talk again about science, catching up to the past!

 

Genesis 3

¹⁴ So the Lord God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

 

So, according to Genesis 3, the snake had lost its legs, arms, or its limbs, or whatever they call them!  Now, the snake crawls and slithers, and can't grab and hold its prey - it eats at ground level -  eating dust along with it!

The snake's losing of its limbs is a step backward!  However you look at it, only a fool will think it's for the advancement of the specie.

 

The snake had lost its limbs not because of evolution.  It's because, God cursed them! 

Science discovered and found snake fossils  with limbs (before they lost them)......evolutionists use this scientific evidence against themselves!  This evidence supports Genesis 3! 
 

Edited May 27, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

So....you see now why Christians  can say......

 

......if evolution is a fact.................we can own evolution!

Edited May 27, 2017 by betsy

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

While I understand how a skeptic or an outright non-believer would want more "convincing," ( I surely hope performing miracles is not the kind of convincing  expected from me, nor the actual appearance by God, required).......

A miracle on its own won't cut it.

Even if God did actually appear I'd still need to be convinced why I should believe or do anything he says, wants or commands etc.  Surely you're not expecting everyone will just automatically follow him because he says so.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

A miracle on its own won't cut it.

Even if God did actually appear I'd still need to be convinced why I should believe or do anything he says, wants or commands etc.  Surely you're not expecting everyone will just automatically follow him because he says so.

If he can turn water into I.P.A., I might be tempted...

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Surely you're not expecting everyone will just automatically follow him because he says so.

That is exactly what is expected.   I'm God, I give contradictory commands, but just pick what you like and do what I say.     Applies equally to all religions, not picking on Betsy's.  

[betsy]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

A miracle on its own won't cut it.

Even if God did actually appear I'd still need to be convinced why I should believe or do anything he says, wants or commands etc.  Surely you're not expecting everyone will just automatically follow him because he says so.

 

You know....that's exactly what's expected from some atheists!  Even if God performs a miracle and appears, some atheists would still find reason why he wouldn't believe.  I forgot how William Lane Craig and Hitchens (I think) had debated, and that came about. 

 

 

[eyeball]

You misunderstand. Knowing something exists is not the same as believing in it. For example, I know Donald Trump is real but I refuse to believe in him or what he stands for. See the difference?

Remember that episode of Star Trek where the Enterprise finds Apollo but the crew just laughs at him when he insists they should stay and worship him? That's what I'm talking about.

Edited May 27, 2017 by eyeball

[betsy]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

You misunderstand. Knowing something exists is not the same as believing in it. For example, I know Donald Trump is real but I refuse to believe in him or what he stands for. See the difference?

Remember that episode of Star Trek where the Enterprise finds Apollo but the crew just laughs at him when he insists they should stay and worship him? That's what I'm talking about.

Okay, I get what you mean.

However.....believing in Trump and in God are not comparable. I don't see the comparison at all with the Star Trek analogy of finding Apollo - which is just another Greek god among many, and not the big boss among the Greek gods either.  Besides, how do they know they found the Apollo, and not just a wannabe or, the wrong Apollo?    It's a poor comparison to  knowing that the One and only true God  exists.

 

Anyway....what do you really know about Trump?  What does he stands for?  You'd really have to sift through all the stories about him in the media, and that still wouldn't reveal much about what, and who he really is.  You don't know him in private.  You haven't spoken and exchange views with him.

He may've said or done something that is abhorrent to you, but he could've just made a mistake (like everyone else).....and you can't say that's what he "stands for,"   unless you know the man.

When I say "know".....I don't mean relying on media reports, and interviews of him (because he can embellish or withhold).  You have to know him intimately - not necessarily in a sexual way and pillow talks.

 

Furthermore, no matter what they say about a leopard not changing its spots - people sometimes do change.  Therefore, you can't really judge a man from his past, unless he's doing the very same thing - the same motivation - in the present. 

 

 

But let's get back to your  idea of what He stands for.

 

So...... even if you do know that the God of the Bible exists for a fact - knowing that you're at His mercy - you wouldn't believe in Him because of what you think, He "stands" for?

  How did you get to that "understanding,"  anyway?

Do you know for a fact that you understand what He stands for?  Are you certain that what you think you know about Him, is  accurate?

 

  I find it hard to believe that anyone would know.........since we don't have the capacity to understand His thoughts and His ways.

 

 

  If you believe the God of the Bible actually exists, you must also believe that there is eternal damnation.  If your Creator says, "Believe in Me, or I'll throw you into the lake of fire for eternity."  Rebelliously responding, "I don't want to, and you can't make me...." seems comical.

The visuals of an ant, defiantly standing in the way of an elephant, bellowing "Get out of my way or I'll squish you"  comes to mind.  And you hear this teeny-weeny ant, saying in a teeny-weeny voice,  "No way! I don't believe in you! "  And that's the last from him!   I mean, really.  

More like the comparison to a guilty, stubborn, prideful youngster who refuses to say sorry,  and  defies his parents even if it means being grounded for 1 month (which must be like eternity to a youth)!  

  It's nothing more but  pride.

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

That is exactly what is expected.   I'm God, I give contradictory commands, but just pick what you like and do what I say.     Applies equally to all religions, not picking on Betsy's.  

Corrections.

It doesn't apply to Christianity.  The Christian God does not give so-called "contradictory" commands.  Refer to the other thread that deals with that particular issue.

 

 

 

Out of curiousity about other religions -  what you said is interesting - please give an example of contradictory commands coming from other religions' gods.

Edited May 28, 2017 by betsy

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

Do you know for a fact that you understand what He stands for?  Are you certain that what you think you know about Him, is  accurate?

I get my impression of what he's like from people like you.  Sort of how I get my impression of what Israel stands for from Rue.