Proof that the Abrahamic god exists?

Archaeopteryx said:

Why would I be required to refute claims that you already admit are unfounded?

Click to expand...

.

JaeMelo said:

Ehhh, im getting the exact opposite vibe from the OP's post. A person who seeks to draw closer to God asks totally different questions. This guy has purposely shut out all the ways a believer could prove Gods existence. What ever his motives or intensions are they can't be of any good. Im leaning more towards redleghunters post where he stated "Some have said entertainment value."

Click to expand...

One could look at the science of the cosmos and then focus on the microscopic world (take a single cell for example) and ask how it's possible that by chance all the necessary factors for life exist apart from a Designer. My belief is that everything eventually points to God. Evil for example points to God. Where does the notion of evil come from? By what standard? And if you have a standard for which to describe evil then you must have a standard for which to describe that which is good. Where exactly does this good spring from? Why is it basically universal (show me a culture that celebrate cowardice and abhors valor). How do we adequately explain universal beliefs?

"We've evolved" doesn't really cut it. It's circular as it assumes what it's trying to prove.

Archaeopteryx said:

Why would I be required to refute claims that you already admit are unfounded?

Click to expand...

Did I use the word "require"? Here is an opportunity; either take or decline.

Anguspure said:

Read the Koran and see if your god is "true".

Click to expand...

Here's one that did just that:
http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310515025?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

Archaeopteryx said:

Moving the thread to this location prevents the OP from commenting, presumably due to a rule regarding the number of posts needed to be able to post in Christian Apologetics.

Click to expand...

Moderators really need to stop moving threads to places where the OP cannot comment. I feel that is a huge detriment to the site, especially to those seeking God (not saying the OP is or is not seeking God).

What good does this site do, if someone who doesn't know God wanders in, posts about trying to find Him, and the thread gets moved to some spot he or she can't respond to? There's the chance that they'll just shrug and leave and go look for answers elsewhere.

Awhile back, one of my threads got moved and it took me nearly a week to be able to actually participate in my own thread that I started, because of this issue. This really really shouldn't be happening, to be quite honest.

How many likes/posts does he need? i will help him out if I can...

ClothedInGrace said:

Allah is not my God. Jesus is my God. They say they believe the Bible yet their Quran contradicts it.

Click to expand...

And the Bible contradicts itself too.

Nihilist Virus said:

And the Bible contradicts itself too.

Click to expand...

He claimed without offering even one solid and reasoned example.

PapaZoom said:

He claimed without offering even one solid and reasoned example.

Click to expand...

The Zedekiah contradiction (short version)

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

2. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

3. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

4. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

5. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

6. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

7. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

8. The chronological progression from 2. to 7. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (2.) + 3 months (2.) + 11 years (4.) + 3 months (5.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

QED

The Zedekiah contradiction (long version)

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30,Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

QED


By the way, it turns out that it is Zedekiah. Jeremiah 37:1 confirms this.

http://christianthinktank.com/zed2old.html

Check that out.

I have to go to work but I'll be back to say more.

civilwarbuff said:

How many likes/posts does he need? i will help him out if I can...

Click to expand...

100 posts and 5 likes.

Nihilist Virus said:

The Zedekiah contradiction (short version)

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

2. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

3. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

4. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

5. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

6. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

7. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

8. The chronological progression from 2. to 7. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (2.) + 3 months (2.) + 11 years (4.) + 3 months (5.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

QED

The Zedekiah contradiction (long version)

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30,Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

QED


By the way, it turns out that it is Zedekiah. Jeremiah 37:1 confirms this.

Click to expand...

I'm off to Easter practice so will look at these when I get back. It's best to suggest "alleged" contradictions because often the objector isn't familiar with the Bible beyond a surface understanding. I'll wager that's part of the problem here.

Occam's Razor said:

1. No anecdotes (personal events)
2. No long commentaries.
3. Use scientific evidence.
4. Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
5. No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)

Click to expand...

I think there is evidence that supports an Intelligent Being created the universe and life within it. If that is supported well enough, then one has to go further and determine what Being that might be.

Occam's Razor said:

Let me ask you this, if I was a Muslim and I told you that my god was true and I did not present any evidence, what would you say?

Click to expand...

Like Conan, I would probably reply that my GOD is greater than your god..............



.................................................................



.

Occam's Razor said:

1. No anecdotes (personal events)
2. No long commentaries.
3. Use scientific evidence.
4. Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
5. No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)

Click to expand...

I appreciate and respect your conditions. The fact that you ask the question indicates you a person interested in finding truth based on reason. Most people find faith stupid or have all kinds of emotional baggage with it.

Xalith said:

http://christianthinktank.com/zed2old.html

Check that out.

I have to go to work but I'll be back to say more.

Click to expand...

OK where to begin. First off, they say this:

"In 3:16 the NLT translates “sons of” as “successors of” and calls Zedekiah “his brother” rather than “his son” as it appears in the Hebrew text (see NLT mg). This translation suggests that the Zedekiah in 3:16 is Jehoiakim’s brother Zedekiah, already listed in 3:15. However, the Chronicler identifies a son of Jehoiakim and brother of Jehoiachin whose name was Zedekiah (to name a son after a brother would not be an oddity, see 2:9, 25)."

Well if we can go citing modern English translations, may I help myself to the ISV?



To preserve inerrancy, we must disavow the ISV. But why stop there? The KJV and some other versions have 2 Kings 8:26 contradicting 2 Chronicles 22:2 in an irreconcilable way.

I can probably find at least one irrefutable contradiction in every version that exists, but to save us time why don't you provide us with the list of versions you find to be acceptable?

Also before we go down this long trail, please tell me now what your view is on transcriber errors. I assume your view must be either that 1.) they don't exist and the Bible is inerrant, or else 2.) they do and they are acceptable. If 1.), then we have to see which versions you are disavowing. If 2.), then I'd be interested in your response to my thread, "Satan and errors in scripture."


Now for a few other things the article says:

According to age, they should have followed each other in this order—Johanan, Jehoiakim, Shallum, and Zedekiah; and in respect to their kingship, Shallum should have stood before Jehoiakim. But in both cases those born of the same mother, Hamutal, would have been separated. To avoid this, apparently, Shallum has been enumerated in the fourth place, along with his full brother Zedekiah." [Keil&Delitzsch]

Also he says this:

and on the other, Zedekiah and Shallum were sons of Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31; 24:18), while Jehoiakim was the son of Zebudah (2 Kings 23:36).

It sounds like he is saying that because a king can have several children at within a short span (since kings had many wives/concubines), and since Zedekiah and Shallum both had the same mother, there is a gap of at least 9 months between them. I believe this is what he means by "separated." He then uses this fact and the fact that Shallum reigned before Zedekiah to move Shallum ahead of Zedekiah in order of birth.

I have no problem with this. It's quite possible this is what happened. All he is doing is simply showing that the error is only in 1 Chronicles 3:15. This resolves the mystery of what actually happened, but instead of resolving the contradiction it confirms it. He is trying to avoid this by inventing a new reason as to why the sons are arranged in the order that they are instead of simply reading the verse itself.


Argument two is a much better argument:



I'm actually almost convinced by this argument, except 1 Chronicles 3:15 goes to the trouble of specifically saying who was first, second, third, and fourth. I get the argument of how the last is the preeminent, it even ties in nicely with Jesus saying that the last shall be first. He even shows that "the Chronicler" has a precedent of doing this because apparently Solomon was David's first son that survived infancy.

But I just find it hard to believe, even given this, that the Chronicler meant that Shallum was the preeminent son becuase he specifically says that Johanan was the firstborn.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the third argument. It seems to be far-fetched. If you really think this is a good one, I'll read it.

The fourth argument is not convincing. The kings were vassal kings, and were given new names by their masters either because their master could not pronounce Jewish words, or as a display of dominance, or perhaps for some other reason. Regardless, the name that one rules under is generally the one that gets put everywhere on signs for the illiterate people to look at, so the vast majority of instances in which the king's name is actually in print is going to be something written down while he was king, hence his vassal name. The chronicler likely wanted to record the king under this name as this was what was most known, so it avoided confusion.

The fifth argument is similar to the first one, but inventing a different reason for sorting the sons.

Essentially, I'm seeing a lot of, "The Bible says this, but what it really means is this giant, complicated web of... hold on, let me find my assumptions and conjectures."

Oncedeceived said:

I think there is evidence that supports an Intelligent Being created the universe and life within it. If that is supported well enough, then one has to go further and determine what Being that might be.

Click to expand...

Where is the evidence of an intelligent being that created the universe?

Also with regards to your signature,

"Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the universe." Galileo

"So sad that in times past the church could not see that God spoke with numbers, just as sad now, Science can not see that numbers speak of God."
Oncedeceived.


Mathematics is a system of assumptions and definitions. It is ultimately vacuous.


Also, a ton of numbers in God's holy book contradict one another. Compare the list of returning exiles from Babylon in Ezra 2 to that in Nehemiah 7.

Occam's Razor said:

1. No anecdotes (personal events)
2. No long commentaries.
3. Use scientific evidence.
4. Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
5. No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)

Click to expand...

1. Fair enough.

2. Okay.

3. There is none, science deals with the observable universe.

4. Okay.

5. And okay.

-CryptoLutheran

@Nihilist Virus : You need to also remember that in the Bible, quite frequently, Firstborn and He who has Firstborn Rights are not always the same.

Isn't Jacob treated as the Firstborn, even though Esau was born first?

This happens too many times to count in the Bible, in fact the sheer number of times that an elder child is passed up for a younger child makes me think that God is trying to hammer in a point and hammer it in hard.

How about Reuben and Judah? Just about every list I ever see, lists Judah first, even though Reuben was the first-born. However, unfortunately for Reuben, he gave up his firstborn rights when he slept with his father's concubine.

Jewish society very highly values the order of birth, but yet it also highly values who has the rights of the firstborn, and sometimes these rights are changed. When this happens, a son is almost always referred to by their rights, not actual chronological order.

It could highly be possible that the sons mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:15 are not chronological but yet legal order.

As for Bible versions, I consider the KJV to be the best English bible. Anytime there's a question with the KJV, I go to biblehub or blueletterbible and look up the Hebrew or Greek.

Here's what the Hebrew of 1 Chronicles 3:15 says:

http://biblehub.com/text/1_chronicles/3-15.htm

and the sons
of Josiah [were]
the firstborn
Johanan
the second
the Jehoiakim
the third
the Zedekiah
fourth
Shallum

Rough translation.

Now, somebody who isn't all that familiar with Jewish culture might take that to mean a literal chronological order instead of a legal order of birth. I propose that it was the latter -- maybe Zedekiah was born after Shallum, but somehow Shallum wound up in fourth place due to some sort of political or familial reason?

If that were true, then from what I've learned of Jewish culture and their tendency to place so much importance in legal rights and genealogies, I wouldn't be surprised if it were understood by Jews that this was not meant to be a chronological order.

As for the other contradiction (the one having to do with 2 Kings 8:26) I'd have to see the Hebrew of both passages, to make sure that they didn't insert an extra character or something. You gotta be real careful about Hebrew; there's a passage in 1 Kings (I forget where exactly) where it mentions the circumference of the laver in Solomon's Temple and people jump on that saying it's wrong, but yet it is actually more accurate than anybody realizes, far more accurate than anybody has calculated pi until modern days.

Why?

Because the Hebrews added a letter onto a word where it normally doesn't belong and given how Gematria works, it changes the value of the number being mentioned, but yet those who copied it, removed the extra letter and stuck it in a side notation as an oddity. Later on, when it was translated into English, that side notation was ignored entirely, and therefore you have the incorrect value in all re-translations of the original texts.

I'm wonder if something like this didn't happen in 2 Kings 8:26 (or its sister passage that seems to disagree with it).