Genesis Proof

Originally posted by arch.buff Originally posted by Decebal   There's also another thing that puzzles me: Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, never as the Son of God. When he talks to God, he calls him Father, but then again isn't God the Father of us all? I think that the early jewish converts saw Jesus as a possible Messiah, but not the son of God. That intrepretation was pushed forward later by Paul. -Jesus' words were when asked if he was the messiah or the son of God were "It is as you say".

He actually says "that's what you say" or something like that, at least in the oficial Catholic version.

And here is where my half-nun sister admits that it seems like he's clapping the hunch of Peter in a benevolent manner and saying just... nothing.

Anyhow, the scholar I mentioned before, suggests that calling god to priests and simmilar was common among Jews then. After all, Jesus as heir of David was a person that had top ranking among monarchist Jews. The problem is that he also wanted to usurpate the position of Supreme Priest, what bothered other Jews, who saw necessary to keep separated religion and state. Furthermore there were anti-monarchists as well... but that's a long story.

You're being a little rash when using the term "God." In the way you're using it, the "God" is something like Zeus or Odin with a definable personality. In this sense, the "God" you're talking about is not the same as the one defined by Christinity. In Christinity, God cannot be something you can analyse with human characteristics. Pride, Desire, intelegence and will are human qualities and do not apply to the Christian "God."

Since I am a Deist, I have a very different view of "god" that's totally unlike your defination of "God".


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco And what i said is right Maju, because if I am right then you have hell to pay (literaly) and if you are right then life is worthless and it doesnt matter what I do with my life.

It's not just you and Maju (with all due respect). Maybe the Hindus are right. Maybe the Wiccans are. Maybe the Sikhs or the Ba'hai. Maybe any one of the vast number of differing religious belief systems is right.  Maybe none are.

This is not an either-or situation.

 Genesis 1 (Amplified Bible)

Genesis 1chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

1IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.>>

Ok, so here it begins, right? >>

2The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters. >>

Where did those came from? From before the beginning? Then the beginning wasn�t quite the beginning.>>

3And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.>>

Switch on. >>

4And God saw that the light was good (suitable, pleasant) and He approved it; and God separated the light from the darkness.>>

 So darkness was bad? Why separate them if  it was not  so? And since light was good why not just eliminate darkness? What is the purpose of darkness? Does God have only partial control upon the darkness? He didn�t seem to have created it. More like they coexisted before the beginning.>>

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.>>

 Things keep on popping up. What are those? Were there evening and mornings before light? Then there must have been some light. Those things were only potential, waiting for the light to be created so that they could have a meaning? One day could be written one light since day=light. One light=A light. Where�s the cigar?>>

6And God said, Let there be a firmament [the expanse of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below] from the waters [above].>>

Why, that�s confusing! Was gravity already implanted, in order for below and above to mean something? Or something like a referential system? When did this happen? And was there something wrong with the waters in order to separate them? >>

7And God made the firmament [the expanse] and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it was so.>>

Cool! That explains it all!>>

8And God called the firmament Heavens. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.>>

Were the heavens he created in the beginning not worthy of the name? >>

9And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be collected into one place [of standing], and let the dry land appear. And it was so. >>

What is that? When was that created?>>

10God called the dry land Earth, and the accumulated waters He called Seas. And God saw that this was good (fitting, admirable) and He approved it.>>

 Was that the earth that He created in the beginning? If not, where did that one go? If yes, why not calling just earth? It couldn�t have been mixed up with water, that�s mud. Oh, I forgot, mud doesn�t exist, it hasn�t been created. Well, anyone can create mud now, since there�s water and earth. It just need God to let him do it. >>

(..). >>

14And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God's provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years,>>

So, lights are needed to have light? To separate the Day from the Night? Weren�t these two already separated before, when light and darkness had been separated? What�s the purpose of  lights, since light already exists, and Day and Night are separated?>>

15And let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth. And it was so.>>

Oh, then earth had been kept in darkness until now. Wait a minute! How was that possible? The earth was under the heavens that just got lights a verse ago! So the heavens were into the darkness too? Well, what�s going on with that light here? Taking a holyday or what?  >>

16And God made the two great lights--the greater light (the sun) to rule the day and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night. He also made the stars.>>

Weren�t the lights He made before enough? And why He mixed light with darkness since in the first day He separated them? Guess He really didn�t like the darkness.>>

17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,>>

So the lights in verse 15 are in the sky and the new lights are in the heavens. Is there a difference between sky and heavens? >>

18To rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good (fitting, pleasant) and He approved it.>>

If there is light during night then light is not separate from the darkness. I guess that for three days He kept on trying to separate that darkness from what he created and when He realized it just could not be done He gave up. Seems the darkness is far more difficult to handle for God. Waters, on the other hand, seem to be far more docile.>>

(�)>>

I won�t go on with it. I see no reason why. One single page of the Bible and it�s enough not to take it for granted. It�s not logical, or at least incomplete. How am I supposed to believe such a thing, ad literam? I would agree that it�s metaphoric, but I won�t stand for it to be shown to me as evidence, or proof, of the Genesis. >>

Astrophysics is far more difficult to read, the mathematics involved can give someone a nasty headache. Not to mention the cost of the experiments necessary to prove the theories. Still, those theories are solid. There can�t be a scientific theory that isn�t at least logically sound. The fact that scientific theories have been proven to be false, by experiments, or facts, means that the biblical Genesis, is either false or not a scientific theory. Therefore the Bible, or those parts of the book that are not sustained by facts  (historical, archeological, physical, etc.) are not to be considered scientific theories. Since they are not scientific, to demonstrate them is useless. They are expressions of faith, metaphors, misinterpretations, bad translations or whatever.>>

None of those who don�t believe in Genesis feel the urge to find a proof of it. GKII said that he had solid proof of the Genesis, that�s how this thread started. Yet he, like his brother, who seems to be in charge of it now, keep on coming with quotes from the holy books. They also seem to automatically reject what others believe if it doesn�t fit with their own beliefs. Not to mention the scientific theories. Seems to me like: �What I think I don�t understand is either wrong or doesn�t exist�. Or worse: �What does not fit with my personal beliefs is either wrong or doesn�t exist� >>

Quotes from the Bible are turned into facts, the hard work and sacrifice of uncounted men and women who developed science is worthless. Those people, to whom we all own our present life standards, are to rot in Hell. Those who burned them at the stake, persecuted them, refused to help them or just dwelled satisfied with their faith, are supposed to inherit the Heaven, or whatever they call that ultimate happiest place. Priests use cell phones, do they think the Holy Spirit, an angel, or whatever holy creature enables those objects to work? If the Inquisition wouldn�t have disappeared would there even be cell phones, or TV�s or computers, or this site, holding this forum?>>

Have faith in God, Allah, or any other deity, or Buddha, Confucius, or other someone else. There�s no problem as long as this doesn�t lead to the harm of those who not share your faith, or don�t have any kind of faith. Let that deity/wise judge their way of living. >>

If one�s faith is real and right, he should not feel as if it�s threaten by what others do, if they contest his faith or don�t care about it or have a different faith. He is entitled to defend his faith, no problem with that, but not to see threats in everything that does not fit with his conceptions.>>

Whoo! This post is becoming too long. >>

*There is someone who can tell everything about Genesis: PHIL COLLINS!>>

*the quotes from the Bible were taken from www.biblegateway.com.>>

> >

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/beyond_belief.htm

The purpose of this book is threefold. Firstly it aims to critically examine Christianity and thereby highlight the logical, philosophical and ethical problems in Christian dogma. In doing this I hope to be able to provide Buddhists with facts, which they can use when, Christians attempt to evangelize them. This book should make such encounters more fair, and hopefully also make it more likely that Buddhists will remain Buddhists. As it is, many Buddhists know little of their own religion and nothing about Christianity - which makes it difficult for them to answer the questions Christians ask or to rebut the claims they make.

The second aim of this book is to help any Christians who might read it to understand why some people are not, and never will be, Christians. Hopefully, this understanding will help them to develop an acceptance of and thereby genuine friendship with Buddhists, rather than relating to them only as potential converts. In order to do this, I have raised as many difficult questions as possible and not a few home truths. If it appears sometimes that I have been hard on Christianity, I hope this will not be interpreted as being motivated by malice. I was a Christian for many years and I still retain a fond regard, and even admiration, for some aspects of Christianity. For me, Jesus' teachings were an important step in my becoming a Buddhist and I think I am a better Buddhist as a result. However when Christians claim, as many do with such insistence, that their religion alone is true, then they must be prepared to answer doubts which others might express about their religion.

The third aim of this book is to awaken in Buddhists a deeper appreciation for their own religion. In some Asian countries Buddhism is thought of an out-of-date superstition while Christianity is seen as a religion, which has all the answers. As these countries become more Westernized, Christianity with its "modern" image begins to look increasingly attractive. I think this book will amply demonstrate that Buddhism is able to ask questions of Christianity which it has great difficulties in answering, and at the same time to offer explanations to life's puzzles which make Christian explanations look rather puerile.

Some Buddhists may object to a book like this, believing that such a gentle and tolerant religion as Buddhism should refrain from criticizing other religions. This is certainly not what the Buddha himself taught. In the Maha Parinibb�na Sutta he said that his disciples should be able to "Teach the Dhamma, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyze it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Dhamma to refute false teachings that have arisen." Subjecting a point of view to careful scrutiny and criticism has an important part to play in helping to winnow truth from falsehood, so that we can be in a better position to choose between "the two and sixty contending sects." Criticism of another religion only becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling. I hope I have avoided doing this.

I would like to thank Moses Chan and Paul Teo, two devout Christians and good friends, for the hours of stimulating discussions we had on some of the matters covered in this book. We agree to disagree but remain friends.

 

CRITIQUE OF CHRISTIAN ARGUMENTS FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE

Christians claim that there is an all-knowing, all-loving God who created and who controls the universe. Several arguments are used to prove this idea. We will examine each of these arguments and give the Buddhist objections to them.

The Authority of the Bible

When asked to prove God's existence, the Christian will often open the Bible and say "The Bible says God exists, so he must." The problem is that if we ask a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew the same question they too will point to their respective holy books as proof of the existence of their Gods. Why should we believe the Bible but not the holy books of all the other religions? Using the Bible to prove God's existence is only valid if we already accept that it alone contains God's words. However, we have no evidence that this is so. In fact, as we will demonstrate later, there is strong evidence that the Bible is a highly unreliable document.

The Existence of the Universe

In their attempts to prove God's existence, Christians will sometimes say "The universe didn't just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God." There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain we do not ask "Who is making it rain?" because we know that rain is caused not by someone but by something - natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river, we do not ask "Who polished those stones?" because we know that the smooth surface of the stones was caused not by someone but by something - natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand.

All of these things have a cause (or causes) but this need not be a being. It is the same with the universe - it was not brought into being by a God but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission, gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we believe that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps it was created by the Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal religions. After all most religions, not only Christianity claim that their God or gods created the universe.

The Argument from Design

In response to the above refutation, the Christian will maintain that the universe does not merely exist but its existence shows perfect design. There is, a Christian might say, an order and balance which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence, and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before, there are some problems with this argument.

Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe.

Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim.

Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn't rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides and volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God.

Now let us look at animate phenomena to see whether they reveal perfect design. At a superficial glance, nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, as any biologist will confirm, nature is utterly ruthless. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature, there is no time for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? The animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense, it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year millions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, or are stillborn or die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things?

So if there is design in the universe, much of it is faulty and cruel. This would seem to indicate that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God.

The First Cause Argument

Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause that there must be a first cause, and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation, for if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause.

There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything.

Miracles

Christians claim that miracles are sometimes performed in God's name and that the fact that this happens proves that God exists. This is an appealing argument until it is looked at a little more closely.

While Christians are quick to claim that because of their prayers the blind could see, the deaf could hear and crooked limbs were straightened, they are very slow in producing evidence to back up their claims. In fact, some Christians are so anxious to prove that miracles have occurred at their prayer meetings that the truth often gets lost in a flood of wild claims, extravagant boasts, and sometimes even conscious lies.

It is true that things, which are unusual and difficult to explain, do sometimes happen during religious events - but not just for Christians. Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, etc. all claim that their God or gods sometimes perform miracles. Christianity certainly does not have a monopoly on miracles. So, if miracles performed in God's name prove the existence of the Christian God, then miracles performed in the name of numerous other gods must likewise prove that they too exist.

Christians may try to overcome this fact by claiming that, when miracles occur in other religions, they are done through the power of the Devil. Perhaps the best way to counter this claim is to quote the Bible. When Jesus healed the sick, his enemies accused him of doing this through the power of the Devil. He answered that healing the sick results in good and if the Devil went around doing good he would destroy himself (Mk 3:22-26). Therefore the same could be said for the miracles performed by Hindus, Jews or Sikhs. If these miracles result in good, how can they be the work of the Devil?

The Argument for God's Necessity

Christians will often claim that only by believing in God will people have the strength to deal with life's problems, and therefore that belief in God is necessary. This claim is apparently supported by numerous books written by Christians who have endured and overcome various crises through the power of God. Some of these books make highly inspiring reading, so the claim that one can cope with problems only with God's help sounds rather convincing - until we look a little more deeply.

If this claim is true, we would expect most of the non-Christian people of the world to lead lives of emotional distress, confusion and hopelessness while most Christians through their faith in God would be able to unfailingly deal with their problems and to never need to seek help from counselors or psychiatrists. It is clear, however, that people from non-Christian religions and even those with no religion are just as capable of dealing with life's crises as Christians are - sometimes even better. It is also sometimes the case that people who are devout Christians lose their faith in God after being confronted with serious personal problems. Consequently, the claim that belief in God is necessary to cope with and overcome problems is baseless.

The "Try and Disprove" Argument

When Christians find they cannot prove God's existence with doubtful facts or logic, they may switch tactics and say "Perhaps it can't be proved that God exists, but neither can you disprove it". This of course is quite true. You cannot prove that God doesn't exist - but neither can you prove that the gods of Taoism, Hinduism and a dozen other religions do not exist. In other words, despite all the hyperbole, the extravagant claims and the confident proclamations, there is no more evidence for the existence of the Christian God than there is for the gods worshipped in other religions.

The Testimony

After everything else has failed, the Christian may finally try to convince us that God exists by appealing to the emotions. Such a person will say, perhaps quite truthfully, "I used to be unhappy and discontented but after giving myself to God I am happy and at peace with myself." Such testimonies can be deeply moving, but what do they prove? There are millions of people whose lives became equally happy and meaningful after they embraced Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam. Likewise, there are no doubt many people whose lives have not changed for the better after they became Christians - the same weaknesses and problems sometimes remain. So this argument, like all the others, does not prove the existence of the Christian God.

 

The emotion which is associated with God more than any other is jealousy. He even admits that he is jealous.

For the Lord is a devouring fire, a jealous God (Deut 4:24).

Nothing makes God more jealous than people worshipping other gods, and he tells us we must even kill our own children if they do this.

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, daughter, the wife of your bosom or the friend of your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods" which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the people that are around you whether near or far, from one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him, but you shall kill him. Your hand shall be the first against him to kill him and after that the others can strike him (Deut 13:6).

The Bible tells us that God frequently loses his temper.

See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it (Is 13:9).

God is angry every day (Ps 7:11).

The Lord will cause men to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and consuming fire (Is 30:30).

His anger will burn against you and he will destroy you from the face of the land (Deut 6:15).

God tells us to love but he is described as hating and being filled with abhorrence.

You hate all those who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors (Ps 5:5-6).

He is further described as hating many other things as well as people (see Deut 16:22, Mala 2:16, Lev 26:30). God has a particularly deep hatred for other religions which probably explains why Christianity has always been such an intolerant religion. He is often described as feeling special hatred for those who will not worship him.

Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates (Is 1:14).

Behold, your God will come with vengeance (Is 35:4).

The Lord is avenging and wrathful, the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and holds wrath for his enemies (Nahum 1:2).

For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay", and again, "The Lord will judge his people". It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living god (Heb 10:30-31). (See also Rom 1:8, 2:5-6, 12:19).

What would be the use of worshipping a God who is full of the very mental defilements, which we ourselves are striving to overcome

whatever modern interpretors tries to create a new definition of God, it doesn't change the fact that the ancients view God as a planning intelligent being with personality. If you define God asd a natural law, then why not just call it natural law or logos, or Tao. Why call it God? god as the ancients interpret it has a personality(or why the wrath? the plans? the revelations? he seem to care alot about the world,) thats what separates it from natural law.

Originally posted by to honeybee

Because the name God has become fashionable. I think Maju said that Yaveh is one of 100 names of the Abrahamic god, yet calling him God seems to make him more believable because unlike Pagan gods who had a name, god is GOD. So for some reason people think because we call him the species he is that makes him more real. Thats the human mind for you, easy to trick, easy to program, and easy to convince.


Edited by SearchAndDestroy

Genesis 1 (Amplified Bible)

Genesis 1chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

1IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.>>

Ok, so here it begins, right? >>

2The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters. >>

Where did those came from? From before the beginning? Then the beginning wasn�t quite the beginning.>>

3And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.>>

Switch on. >>

4And God saw that the light was good (suitable, pleasant) and He approved it; and God separated the light from the darkness.>>

 So darkness was bad? Why separate them if  it was not  so? And since light was good why not just eliminate darkness? What is the purpose of darkness? Does God have only partial control upon the darkness? He didn�t seem to have created it. More like they coexisted before the beginning.>>

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.>>

 Things keep on popping up. What are those? Were there evening and mornings before light? Then there must have been some light. Those things were only potential, waiting for the light to be created so that they could have a meaning? One day could be written one light since day=light. One light=A light. Where�s the cigar?>>

6And God said, Let there be a firmament [the expanse of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below] from the waters [above].>>

Why, that�s confusing! Was gravity already implanted, in order for below and above to mean something? Or something like a referential system? When did this happen? And was there something wrong with the waters in order to separate them? >>

7And God made the firmament [the expanse] and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it was so.>>

Cool! That explains it all!>>

8And God called the firmament Heavens. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.>>

Were the heavens he created in the beginning not worthy of the name? >>

9And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be collected into one place [of standing], and let the dry land appear. And it was so. >>

What is that? When was that created?>>

10God called the dry land Earth, and the accumulated waters He called Seas. And God saw that this was good (fitting, admirable) and He approved it.>>

 Was that the earth that He created in the beginning? If not, where did that one go? If yes, why not calling just earth? It couldn�t have been mixed up with water, that�s mud. Oh, I forgot, mud doesn�t exist, it hasn�t been created. Well, anyone can create mud now, since there�s water and earth. It just need God to let him do it. >>

(..). >>

14And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God's provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years,>>

So, lights are needed to have light? To separate the Day from the Night? Weren�t these two already separated before, when light and darkness had been separated? What�s the purpose of  lights, since light already exists, and Day and Night are separated?>>

15And let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth. And it was so.>>

Oh, then earth had been kept in darkness until now. Wait a minute! How was that possible? The earth was under the heavens that just got lights a verse ago! So the heavens were into the darkness too? Well, what�s going on with that light here? Taking a holyday or what?  >>

16And God made the two great lights--the greater light (the sun) to rule the day and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night. He also made the stars.>>

Weren�t the lights He made before enough? And why He mixed light with darkness since in the first day He separated them? Guess He really didn�t like the darkness.>>

17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,>>

So the lights in verse 15 are in the sky and the new lights are in the heavens. Is there a difference between sky and heavens? >>

18To rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good (fitting, pleasant) and He approved it.>>

If there is light during night then light is not separate from the darkness. I guess that for three days He kept on trying to separate that darkness from what he created and when He realized it just could not be done He gave up. Seems the darkness is far more difficult to handle for God. Waters, on the other hand, seem to be far more docile.>>

(�)>>

I won�t go on with it. I see no reason why. One single page of the Bible and it�s enough not to take it for granted. It�s not logical, or at least incomplete. How am I supposed to believe such a thing, ad literam? I would agree that it�s metaphoric, but I won�t stand for it to be shown to me as evidence, or proof, of the Genesis. >>

Astrophysics is far more difficult to read, the mathematics involved can give someone a nasty headache. Not to mention the cost of the experiments necessary to prove the theories. Still, those theories are solid. There can�t be a scientific theory that isn�t at least logically sound. The fact that scientific theories have been proven to be false, by experiments, or facts, means that the biblical Genesis, is either false or not a scientific theory. Therefore the Bible, or those parts of the book that are not sustained by facts  (historical, archeological, physical, etc.) are not to be considered scientific theories. Since they are not scientific, to demonstrate them is useless. They are expressions of faith, metaphors, misinterpretations, bad translations or whatever.>>

None of those who don�t believe in Genesis feel the urge to find a proof of it. GKII said that he had solid proof of the Genesis, that�s how this thread started. Yet he, like his brother, who seems to be in charge of it now, keep on coming with quotes from the holy books. They also seem to automatically reject what others believe if it doesn�t fit with their own beliefs. Not to mention the scientific theories. Seems to me like: �What I think I don�t understand is either wrong or doesn�t exist�. Or worse: �What does not fit with my personal beliefs is either wrong or doesn�t exist� >>

Quotes from the Bible are turned into facts, the hard work and sacrifice of uncounted men and women who developed science is worthless. Those people, to whom we all own our present life standards, are to rot in Hell. Those who burned them at the stake, persecuted them, refused to help them or just dwelled satisfied with their faith, are supposed to inherit the Heaven, or whatever they call that ultimate happiest place. Priests use cell phones, do they think the Holy Spirit, an angel, or whatever holy creature enables those objects to work? If the Inquisition wouldn�t have disappeared would there even be cell phones, or TV�s or computers, or this site, holding this forum?>>

Have faith in God, Allah, or any other deity, or Buddha, Confucius, or other someone else. There�s no problem as long as this doesn�t lead to the harm of those who not share your faith, or don�t have any kind of faith. Let that deity/wise judge their way of living. >>

If one�s faith is real and right, he should not feel as if it�s threaten by what others do, if they contest his faith or don�t care about it or have a different faith. He is entitled to defend his faith, no problem with that, but not to see threats in everything that does not fit with his conceptions.>>

Whoo! This post is becoming too long. >>

*There is someone who can tell everything about Genesis: PHIL COLLINS!>>

*the quotes from the Bible were taken from www.biblegateway.com.>>

Ok you used something other than KJV so...

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  

And it does make sence to me.

1 God created the heavens and the earth first. Thats where the waters came from

2. God is creative. That is why he seperated the darkness and the light. And it said nothing about the darkness being bad.

3. It was writen so people in that time could understand. thats why it says evning and morning.

4 and who says it was the sky? or why cant it be clouds? Or even the water canopy Idea? that would explain the flood.

5. There are 3 heavens in the bible. the first is the sky. like clouds and stuff. this is probably the heaven they are

9 & 10. If the earth were a perfect sphere (with the exact same mass of earth and water) then the world would be covered in 1 mile deep water. That means that he must have shaped it. Like made the earth rise above the water.

14, 15 & 16. He created light but hadnt put it to use.

17. In the KJV it says heavens in verse 15

18. like i said, God is creative. He is not boring, and dull. He has a sence of creativity. Far more than any human.

Realy you should learn hebrew as a second language. Then you can go around throwing acusations of the Bible not being logical. In Hebrew of course

And the best way to prove the Bible is right or wrong is...

WITH THE BIBLE!!!

spicificaly prophecies

 

I do not feel threatened by other faiths. Why should i? What i am woried about are the people in those other faiths. They are in a lot of trouble if i am right in what i belive.

and what dont you get?! The bible is not against science. It is against evolution. Dont try to change the subject and dont tell me the bible will fit in with evolution. I will not belive it so you would be wasting your time.

And George Washington claimed to see an angle and Darwin became a christian in his last years. George Washington "cannot tell a lie" and Darwin was the founder of modern evolution. I have enough evidence to prove it (the darwin thing) if anyone wants it. Just tell me

You say that the New Testament was made to look like Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. That is a very bad argument. I could say that men have never walked on the moon. and i have a like

100th hand-acount. It is entirely uncredible because i dont have first hand acount. Or i can say that Cyrus never conquered Babylon. I dont have a firsts hand acount so it has no credibility. And someone said noahs ark was a hoax (I cant remember who). Can you tell me where you found that out? And about jerhico. Did you know that the walls looked like they fell backwards. (How could that be? My 5th grade history book says that seige weapons were not invented until Alexander the great. Of course it is clearly not credible because it is from a christian perspective)

And Imporator Invictus said that 1/10 of the stuff about jesus is true. I am sure this includes the some of prophesees. More than 8 for sure.

Edited by El Pollo Loco

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco Realy you should learn hebrew as a second language. Then you can go around throwing acusations of the Bible not being logical. In Hebrew of course

Wanna fight only on logic? You're on!

Oh, btw, no offense meant, can you handle logic so that everyone accept the way you handle it or is it just "your" logic? If that's so, can you post what that means so that I can cope with it?

For the sake of it think about "my logic". Does it look OK to you?

*What about Phill. Haven't you contacted him?