I believe if you'll look closer, it says that the earth is the center of God's creation.
No I am afraid not. It actually says that the earth is "fixed" and does not move. Thus does not rotate nor does it orbit the sun. Look at Psalm 104:5 "The LORD set the earth on its foundations: it can never be moved".
Here are some other Examples:
Ecclesiastes 1:5, "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place". Thus suggest that the sun (not the earth) moves. Any child with a basic science background today knows that the earth revolves around the sun. Clearly this is an error. Thus there are scientific errors in the bible.
1 Chronicles 16:30, :"Trimble before him , all earth, he has made the world firm, not to be moved." (note "he has made the world firm, not to be moved"...so no rotation? no solar obit?)
This was actually the basis for attacking Galileo. He was tried for Heresy and found guilty by the Inquisition ( church court). If we listened to the church and accepted blind "inerrant" interpretations of scripture we would still be believing that the earth was fixed and that sun actually moved not the earth. This is another excellent example why the bible cannot be read as literal.
My kids are at the center of my life; that doesn't mean they are in my abdomen all the time. It means that they are what I concentrate on. And the Bible, at least that portion, is written from God's point of view. Maybe from His perspective, everything does revolve around the earth. In relation to other astrological bodies, the earth does move. In relation to God, it does not. It's a matter of perspective.
I take all "Science" with a grain of salt. It is full of misstatements, and intentional misdirection. For instance, I don't believe in evolution. I believe God created the heavens and the earth in six days.
Again your view is based upon a "literal" reading of Genesis. Genesis or "Bereshith" in Hebrew, is a creation story that was a part of the oral tradition that somewhere along the way someone committed to paper. The author is likely not Moses but no author is given. We have no idea of who wrote it.
I have seen proof that carbon dating past 2000 years or so is a fraud. So what you call rock solid and what I do are two different things.
Actually this highly inaccurate. Carbon 14 dating is very accurate up to 60,000 years. It is not a fraud. We have good data to support his fact. That is not to say hat labs do not make errors (humans make mistakes). However a smart scientist always sends his findings to at least two if not three different labs for dating, thus this reduces the possibility of error greatly.
For dating of objects older than 60,000 years we test for different elements:
Carbon 14- Fossil wood, shell, bone fragments, fabrics..ect (accurate up to 60,000-70,000 years).
Uranium 235- Uranium and granite rocks older than 110,000 years.
Potassium 40- bearing minerals more than 100,000
Uranium 238 - Uranium and Granite rocks more than 10 Million years old.
Thorium 232- Uranium and Granite rocks more than 50 Million years old.
Rubidium 87 - Some granite rocks, sandstones an igeneus, sedimentary, and metaphorphic rocks older than 10 Million years.
For older fossil bones (such as dinosaurs and early human remains millions of years old), what we do is we date the rocks and minerals that are found at the same level as the fossil we have found. If something is covered in a layer of 100 million year old rock than that object is likely from that period. Obviously we do not use exact dates but rather we use ranges. For example if we find a Tyrannosaurs fossil we would date the rock formations in which it was found. If we date the rocks to be say 70 million years old we have a pretty good idea of the age of that Tyrannosaurs. We give it a range, like say 65 - 75 Million years. While this will not be "exact" it does rule out the world being created about 6,000 years ago as some who suggest that the bible is "literal" claim. The fact is we can and do accurately date fossils, the fossil record is reliable and we know for a fact the earth is billions of years old not thousands..lol
Again, what makes you think that the oldest copies we happen to still have are more correct?
Because to believe otherwise would simply be an assumption about which you could prove or know nothing? It would be like assuming that laying out in the desert somewhere is proof you are correct written a tablet. No one is going to believe you until you produce that tablet.
People are much more likely to leave things out when copying than adding to something.
This is true. However this also assumes that no one had their own "agenda" and wanted to added something intentionally. What if for example I want the bible to say something against something I think is wrong. I say well "surely god would agree" and I add it to the document. I am not suggesting everything happen that way, but it is surely possible that at least somethings were added.
Perhaps the older copies we have were rejects because of words taken out.
So again even if this were so how would we know they were "rejects" except for an "assumption". You would be speculating, and if the bible is really "protected" from mans manipulation than these "rejects" would be obvious or they would never have been found.
The church tried for a long time to suppress the truth and keep it from people. The used torture and murder to keep it from the pubic. But now we have opened up the truth for all to see who want to see it.
Anyway, I have faith that my God can do as He wishes with that book or any other.
But your faith has to have at least some facts associated with it..otherwise it simply a wish or assumption.
And that's the basic difference between us. I don't have to have empirical evidence, admissible in court, in order to believe in the God of the Bible. I believed; I asked Him to show me, and He did. It isn't my job to convince you or anyone else. I am 100% sure, without a doubt. Because I sincerely believed first, without any outside proof, God gave me proof anyway.
Than please show us the empirical evidence he presented to you. I would love to see it. For that matter why not show the world? How cruel it would be to intentionally keep it hidden so billions would not be saved. Again this is why I believe that a literal hell where people are burned and tortured without end is not true.
Again, you have every right to believe whatever you want to believe and I would defend you right to believe it to my death. However, some who take this view attempt to use this "literal" reading of the bible to legislate and force others to do things or not do things they can only justify by use of a "literal" reading of the books of the bible and believing it is "inerrant". Those people are the ones who have tried to keep freedom out of the hands of the masses. I am not accusing you or suggesting that you are or would do that, but there are those who do.
Did you read the original text? I didn't think we had a copy of it.
No I did not read the actual original text or "autograph". We do not have that for ANY of the books that make up the bible. But I have seen some of the earliest text we do have and those are what I am discussing in my answers to you.
Okay, either you take the Bible literally - in which case anyone who added to or subtracted from it is cursed, which means it is protected by God (protected by a curse);
Again, giving such a warning itself says it can be done. The bible can be added to and subtracted from, or else why have the warning and the curse there to begin with? It does not mean it is "protected" by god. It means god will punish anyone who "adds to or subtracts from it" just as god might punish for some other act. However the punishment is not permanent in duration it is finite.
So, I guess the question is, what are you going to believe?
Man's reasoning skills, human logic, what we can prove?
All belief must be rooted in some form of logic or you render you beliefs nothing more than wishful thinking and assumptions.
OR
God, who's thoughts are not like our thoughts, and ways are not like our ways?
I believe this has been used for centuries to justify cruel treatment and torture. It has been used to support a doctrine and theology of hate not love. It teaches a god that wants to force and threaten us into submission for his own vanity rather than a merciful loving god who wants to save us and who recognizes our weakness and in the end will not punish us endlessly. There maybe some form of punishment, but it would be finite, and not "eternal", it would also likely not be the nature you think it might be.
Who offers us eternal life with Him out of love?
God does. But your version of god is not one of love and hope, but one of punishment and torture.
You can't have it both ways.
I am not trying to have it both ways I have stated clearly my belief in god and his nature is love not hate or torture as you suggest.
Or you can, but there's a point you have to choose, and say, "No, there's no objective, discernable evidence of a god, so there must not be one." Or else, "No, there's not objective, discernible evidence of God, but there's plenty of subjective proof. There's the wonder of nature, changed lives, miracles. So I choose to believe in You, God."
I too choose to believe in god, but I do not throw away all reason in doing so. I believe in god and keep my reasoning and logic. I do not make up assumptions to support a view that is without any proof of its existence. God whatever name you may call him by is not a god of punishment but of love and forgiveness and understanding. He is the Prince of Peace!
Personally, I wouldn't follow a God that I could totally explain.
Where did I say I could totally explain god? But then again, why not follow a god that loved you enough to lay out his cards on the table? One that respected your dignity and worth and who did not want to punish you for simply not believing he existed when he has not put forth a lot of evidence to show his existence.
I want my God to be much bigger than I am.
He is bigger than all of us. But he is not of the nature you have stated he is, he is the Prince of Peace and Love...not hatred and punishment!
My God has reasons for things, reasons that I may never understand. And that's okay with me.
Again you have every right to believe as you wish. That of course does not make what you believe correct. You cannot use reasoning such as "I may never understand" simply as a means of accepting something that is incorrect such as the belief that god tortures people in hell with actual burning fires forever and ever.
