Why dosent God just pop up and say "Hi"

[Angelo Scotto]

Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
To Angelo Scotto, this has indeed become off-topic. If anyone starts a thread, inform me.

To quote yourself:
I W0N!!!11!!11!¤#"""!!1


Back to the topic,
about the Bible accuracy:
I don't think Bible was written to be historically and scientifically accurate (and neither church think this, i believe);
come on, at school teachers told us Newton's physics even if they know it was not accurate, they told us that electrons orbit around nucleii as planets around stars and this too is false, and i could continue.
But no one complains about it, because it's a nonsense to cover kids with hard-to-understand-but-accurate notions, they aren't able to understand the real theory, so we give them a dumbed-down version of science to make them understand central points, waiting for them to grow up and discover the real theory on their own.
Bible could be the same thing just for mankind instead of man, mankind was too young (or dumb) to understand things such as big-bang, evolution, space-time, blah, blah, blah and so God talked us in terms of genesis, etc...

I could be wrong but trying to take the Bible and start yelling "read here, it's not accurate, read there, it's a contraddiction" is like opening a school physics book and start yelling "read here, it's not true, we've QM" or opening Newton's Principia and start yelling "read there, he's wrong, we've relativity!": you can do it and no one could argue you're wrong but IMHO doing so will make you miss the point completely.

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
I can't find the exact quote, but didn't Douglas Adams point out that faith is a prerequisite to God's existence and that if He were to show up one day and say "HI", thus proving He Exists, He would disappear in a puff of logic ?

That was an interesting point:

God (at least the biblical one) said clearly and several times (ok, if the book was correct at least on that...) that humans can reach him only with faith (and not with reason).

Now, if he simply show up one day and say "HI" this should prove his existance without the need of faith.

So, we obtain this:
if he doesn't exist he obviously can't pop-up.
but if he exists he simply won't pop-up.

So it seems that, logically speaking, he check-mated us in a single move...
hardly surprising since he, if exists, is God...

Well, one could argue that this was an invention of bible-writers to fool us but i don't think that a group of 4th century nomad (obi's copyright ) was so gifted in logic, onthology and science philosophy to trick us that way (considering that logic and philosophy were still in infancy while science was still far from being invented).

Another interesting thing to notice is that christian religion is not the only one to reject the use of reason to proof the existance of metaphysics (for example the "enlightment" concept of buddhism is all against rational reasoning) but this IMHO, far from being a proof that all these religions have "something to hide" is simply a proof that they talk about metaphysics:
As Kant said (i'm unworthy to cite him but i'll do anyway) the point is that the traditional attempts to prove that God really exists, founded as they are on what we experience, cannot establish the reality of a being necessarily beyond all experience.

[juhani_kahvi]

...I could be wrong but trying to take the Bible and start yelling "read here, it's not accurate, read there, it's a contraddiction" is like opening a school physics book and start yelling "read here, it's not true, we've QM" or opening Newton's Principia and start yelling "read there, he's wrong, we've relativity!": you can do it and no one could argue you're wrong but IMHO doing so will make you miss the point completely.

However, now a great part of mankind has developed to a stage where the biblical "crude" explanations actually DON'T make any sense anymore, exactly because of their crudeness. It doesn't help people to understand Bible anymore, instead, it prevents it.
(Again, it seems like god loves only stupid people...)

[Ben Kenobi]

Where is the extra-Biblical confirmation that Egypt did indeed experience seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine, as claimed in the Bible?

Well, that's a whole 'nother boat.

You really should specify that when you are looking for a prophecy.

Are you, or are you not, arguing that the truth of the Bible is verified by the contents of the Book of Job?

I am arguing that this section of Job indicates that some parts of scripture can only be known through divine revelation. We have no way of using human methods to test these passages.

There is no doubt that all of the books of the OT were written before the (supposed) time of Jesus, and all the books of the NT were written after. So, if an OT book predicted the name of the Roman emperor, or of other political figures such as Quirinus, Pontius Pilate or Herod (bearing in mind that there was more than one king by that name), that would be a "true prophecy".

Or an NT (or OT) prophecy that the nation of Israel would dissolve, then re-form about 2,000 years later.

You violate your own methods when you say that the passage in Isaiah's prophesies can be successfully fulfilled later inside the book of Isaiah. My example is precisely the same as the prophecy you refer to in Isaiah.

So tough luck. Either revise your definition, or admit that you have already rejected a passage by appealing to a biblical prophecy outside of your definition of what constitutes a prophecy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Second, as was stated, until you can raise the dead yourself, this argument doesn't have much merit, does it?

Boris:

God's knowledge allows people to be resurrected. I do not have knowledge equivalent to God, therefore, I cannot raise the dead. Your example illustrates why divine knowledge is superior to human knowledge.

Human knowledge has created medicines that have greatly enhanced the human lifespan and people's health around the globe. Human medical knowledge has also resuscitated people who have died briefly.

Hardly resurrection of the body, as described in scripture. Resuscitation does not equate with resurrection.

If that's what drives you, so be it, that's your perrogative. Personally, I would find it rather sad if my only hope when getting up in the morning was that someday I'd be in some perfect paradise.

It gives me hope when I see the troubles of this world, to know that I will see everything eventually fade away. If I relied upon living the best life, what do I do when I constantly fail?

So in other words, you reject applying the more direct Hebrew translations in favor of the NIV, which is an obvious attempt to sanitize the Bible and correct its errors? The NIV was compiled when, confronted with all the Biblical contradictions, folks decided to eliminate some of them by hook or by crook. The basis for the translation is wishful thinking, not accuracy.

No. I literally mean you can't see the forest for the trees. The passages are two different lines of human ancestry entirely. If you read the hebrew properly, you would see this, and understand the mistake you made.

The NIV is not reliable. The KJV is more accurate in terms of its translation of the ancient texts.

Words change over time. Do you understand the KJV in the same way that someone would have when the KJV was first written?

Secondly, I am happy to continue this detailed argument that takes lots of my time, if I feel we will generate some results.

What's the point of arguing over the differences between the NIV and the KJV when you do not acknowledge the truth of the sections where they agree?

You obviously have experience with scripture, so why do you reject Christ?

[Ben Kenobi]

Angelo Scotto:

I don't think Bible was written to be historically and scientifically accurate (and neither church think this, i believe);

Not quite. The Bible was written as an excellent historical testimony into the workings of God on the lives of men. You can see this in the historical sections of the bible, where the historian will leave out information not relevant to understanding the nature of God, areas that God does not play a big role in someone's life.

The same can be said with Genesis. That is why you see a description in the form that we do, rather than in the way a physics textbook would describe the creation of the universe. Physics focusses on the process, while Genesis focusses on the creator.

This does not excuse me from trying to show how the two can work together. There are difficulties, but that has more to do with the different purposes than any outright contradiction between the two sources of knowledge.

Bible could be the same thing just for mankind instead of man, mankind was too young (or dumb) to understand things such as big-bang, evolution, space-time, blah, blah, blah and so God talked us in terms of genesis, etc...

So adults way back when were stupid and dull? That's why aliens had to have built the Pyramids, because obviously they were too stupid to have figured things out for themselves.

Today, we are incredibly arrogant, but what astonishes me is the amount of knowledge we have lost over time. How can we judge what people knew, without a full record?

IMHO doing so will make you miss the point completely.

Perceptive. We can spend all day on these points, but they are more useful to expose bias against scripture than for anything else.

God (at least the biblical one) said clearly and several times (ok, if the book was correct at least on that...) that humans can reach him only with faith (and not with reason).

Indeed, the Bible says that faith is necessary to reach God, but you must understand what faith means. Faith means that you trust God with your life based on the assurances provided by scripture. God, fortunately, does not expect us to believe in his existence through faith alone.

Looking at 1 Corinthians 15, we see that without the resurrection, we have nothing, no concrete evidence that the God that exists is the Christian God.

juhani_kavi:

It doesn't help people to understand Bible anymore, instead, it prevents it.

So why trust science? Scientific theories come and go.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:

God's knowledge allows people to be resurrected. I do not have knowledge equivalent to God, therefore, I cannot raise the dead. Your example illustrates why divine knowledge is superior to human knowledge.

Problem is that God's knowledge in this regard is unsubstantiated, whereas medice has demonstrably been able to "bring people back." Looks like as far as evidence goes, we're one over God.

Hardly resurrection of the body, as described in scripture. Resuscitation does not equate with resurrection.

Again, such resurrection is not substantiated. The writings of the ancient Egyptians claim that Osiris was resurrected after being hacked to pieces. So did he beat Jesus to the punch?

It gives me hope when I see the troubles of this world, to know that I will see everything eventually fade away. If I relied upon living the best life, what do I do when I constantly fail?

I don't see why you need to believe in a mythical paradise to have hope for the world. In fact, it seems to me such a notion would inhibit many from trying to make this world a better place. "Oh, things are bad, but it will all be alright in heaven, so I don't need to do anything about it."

And what failures? If you aim to be perfect, that's your problem. I aim to live the best life of which I am capable, knowing I'm not perfect. Yes, I'll screw up and yes, I'll have bad times--but so what? That's part of life and doesn't mean I'm bad for my mistakes. I certainly don't need the threat of an eternal spanking or the promises of cherubim and seraphim to keep me in line/going. You're here, you're alive, you have choices--I don't think life philosophies need to get too complicated beyond that.

No. I literally mean you can't see the forest for the trees. The passages are two different lines of human ancestry entirely. If you read the hebrew properly, you would see this, and understand the mistake you made.

I understand the bloodlines and will concede this point, but my mention of the original Hebrew--as well as the unreliability of the NIV--was more towards the later dovetailing out of the other contradictions.

Words change over time. Do you understand the KJV in the same way that someone would have when the KJV was first written?

That's why I like to find more accurate translations of the Hebrew--after all, the KJV was assembled by people with an agenda as well. I think it is more reasonable to take the words in the Hebrew at their face value in as many instances as possible rather than relying on tortured excuses or inexplicable word changes (NIV) to sanitize what is said.

You obviously have experience with scripture, so why do you reject Christ?

Why do you reject Osiris? Marduk? Zeus? Vishnu? Mohammed's prophecies? Buddha?

Your explanations for those might give a hint as to why I reject your religious dogma, and all religious dogma. The simple matter is that I see absolutely no reason, other than the rather venal "I don't wanna die, I wanna go to heaven!" one, to believe in an all-powerful god who created everything. I feel even less compunction to devote myself to any of the myths created by man, whether it be Christianity, Zorastrianism, Shintoism, etc., as they all are full of, to be frank, a lot of BS.

It's fine if you need such a philosophy to get you through your day, but I do not need it nor do I want it. If it turns out god exists and he's so petty as to damn me for not believing in him, no matter what my works are as a person, then I wouldn't feel remorse over it, because he will have proven himself evil.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Seventh from Adam. Seven generations, counting Adam.

Don't buy it. Seventh from is a clear statement of seven, not counting Adam. But I doubt we'll agree.

NIV:

"neither the son of man that he should change his mind."

Ex. 32:14

Quite different in the NIV:

"Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."

God threatens in order to inspire righteousness, rebukes so that the Israelites repent.

NIV is crap. Original Hebrew:

Num 23

19 God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?

Ex 32:

14 And the LORD repented of the evil which He said He would do unto His people.

However you want to translate "repent," whether as remorse or changing his mind, the text clearly says in one point God will not do it, and then that he did do it. It also, I will point out, says that God was capable of committing an evil act on his people.

Again, the NIV renders Gen 14:16 as:

"He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions."

So I fail to see the contradiction that Abraham finds his brother captured and then rescues Lot in the immediately following passages.

You fail to see it because you're relying on the bastardized NIV rather than the original text. That much is obvious.

Gen 14:

12 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.

16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

The word used is "brother."

Deal with that for now, gotta get to work!

[Atahualpa]

Beecohse hee dohs noht knohw teh wohrd toh say soh thaht eferyohne een teh wohrld dohes understance him

[DaShi]

God is blind. He only knows what is going on by what people say in prayers and what dead people tell him so he never gets a clear picture.

[Alexander's Horse]

Is God ever absent from our world?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
You violate your own methods when you say that the passage in Isaiah's prophesies can be successfully fulfilled later inside the book of Isaiah. My example is precisely the same as the prophecy you refer to in Isaiah.

So tough luck. Either revise your definition, or admit that you have already rejected a passage by appealing to a biblical prophecy outside of your definition of what constitutes a prophecy.

Not to step on Jack's toes, but you're not making sense here, obiwan. Jack cited the Isaiah prophecy because, in the Bible the prediction is made and then, in Isaiah, it is fulfilled. And THEN, in the NT, it is said that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy. Whether or not the prophecy was successfully fulfilled in reality is not the relevant point, it's that you can't have it both ways. Either the prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah, or by Jesus, but it can't be both.

Now, as a matter of history, the prophecy itself was probably invented after the fulfillment and then backed into, like many Biblical prophesies. But your saying Jack can't cite this as an example is a cop out to avoid explaining how, according to the infallible Bible, Jesus was fulfilling a prophecy that was, according to the infallible Bible, already fulfilled.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Is God ever absent from our world?

no

the problem with the question of God existing are the people, some see him and the others don't...

[Spiffor]

I have just read a summary of the Muslim Apocalypse, and at some point, Jesus comes from heaven on the Muslim's side, and tells all Christians to convert to Islam.

My question is :
If God (Jesus) popped up on Earth and say "go convert to Islam", how would you religious people react ?

[DaShi]

How would you athiest people react?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have just read a summary of the Muslim Apocalypse, and at some point, Jesus comes from heaven on the Muslim's side, and tells all Christians to convert to Islam.

My question is :
If God (Jesus) popped up on Earth and say "go convert to Islam", how would you religious people react ?

The better question is when he would pop up and say... Why are you religious? What does it mean?

He didn't have to ask Jews for that as it was clear they were the "chosen people" but what made any of the others think they are the chosen ones?