Proof that the Abrahamic god exists?

[ViaCrucis]

But that is not how rationalism and empiricism work. We live in the natural, not the spiritual. You are trying to tap-dance to say "god done it" without giving me scientific proof. Just answer the question using scientific evidence.

Addressing the theological with science is like using a square peg to fit into a round hole.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xalith]

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.

You realize that there were multiple trips back to Jerusalem, right? That's a mistake a lot of people make. There were a couple calls to rebuild the Temple, but then a call to rebuild the Temple _and_ walls and streets of Jerusalem.

Same thing that causes a lot of people to trip up when trying to do the math in Daniel 9.

 

[ewq1938]

No one can prove God exists.
No one can prove God doesn't exist.

/thread

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.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

So what do you want to do here? Do you want to see what supports an Intelligent Designer or do you want to discuss how the Bible is according to you not inerrant?

 

[stage five]

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

There are three possibilities, logically speaking.
1) We came from nothing.
2) We came from something
3) We came from everything (that is, God)

Also with regards to your signature,

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

I doubt Galileo said that. That sounds more like something derived from Descartes.

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

Math is actually a system of proofs. I don't think you understand what math is.

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.

Yes, sometimes numbers do not add up.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@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).

All great ideas but you have no hard facts at all. There is nothing to suggest that Zedekiah surrendered his birthright.

What we have is pure conjecture vs text that is explicit. It explicitly says firstborn, second, third, and fourth. And you come along with zero evidence (but a decent conjecture) saying that the text doesn't mean what it says.

 

[Xalith]

All great ideas but you have no hard facts at all. There is nothing to suggest that Zedekiah surrendered his birthright.

What we have is pure conjecture vs text that is explicit. It explicitly says firstborn, second, third, and fourth. And you come along with zero evidence (but a decent conjecture) saying that the text doesn't mean what it says.

There is evidence elsewhere in the Bible, that firstborn (chronologically) are routinely passed up in favor of a younger and sometimes these lists are indeed written out of chronological order.

If the Bible did it elsewhere, why not here too? Is it that big of a stretch to believe?

What I've shown is that Zedekiah and the "discrepancy" might not be a discrepancy at all.

Basically, what I'm doing is disproving the "irrefutable proof" that the Bible is wrong. You just admitted that it is possible that this could be the case. Therefore, there's no more "irrefutable proof" that the Bible is wrong when it concerns Zedekiah and Shallum. There's a way it could be right. We have no proof, one way or the other.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You realize that there were multiple trips back to Jerusalem, right? That's a mistake a lot of people make. There were a couple calls to rebuild the Temple, but then a call to rebuild the Temple _and_ walls and streets of Jerusalem.

Same thing that causes a lot of people to trip up when trying to do the math in Daniel 9.

The same family clans made the same move twice? Have you even looked at it? Your suggestion is not plausible and you'd see that if you read it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There is evidence elsewhere in the Bible, that firstborn (chronologically) are routinely passed up in favor of a younger and sometimes these lists are indeed written out of chronological order.

If the Bible did it elsewhere, why not here too? Is it that big of a stretch to believe?

If it simply listed them in their order without naming them firstborn, second, etc then no, it wouldn't be a stretch. I've seen many genealogies that are mentioned twice in differing orders, and I don't cite contradictions. But if they don't agree on the order but each claim to explicitly list the order, then that would be a contradiction. Similar to what we see here.

 

[Xalith]

Okay, I read over the two (I was confusing another section, sorry).

Nehemiah 7:66: 42,360
Ezra 2:64: 42,360

I don't see a discrepancy here? Unless it's hidden in the family tallies somewhere?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So what do you want to do here? Do you want to see what supports an Intelligent Designer or do you want to discuss how the Bible is according to you not inerrant?

Both. Either. Whatever. Just exchange ideas.

 

[Xalith]

If it simply listed them in their order without naming them firstborn, second, etc then no, it wouldn't be a stretch. I've seen many genealogies that are mentioned twice in differing orders, and I don't cite contradictions. But if they don't agree on the order but each claim to explicitly list the order, then that would be a contradiction. Similar to what we see here.

1 Chronicles 13:5 never claimed to be a chronological list, though. The only clue that you get, is it mentions Johanan being "firstborn" (again, this could mean chronological OR legal) and it says "second, third and fourth". It does not say "they were born in this order" or anything of the sort. It doesn't say "This one was born, and then this one was born, and then this one was born" (like in Genesis with Jacob's sons), either.

That tells me that this list could very easily be a legal order and not a chronological order.

 

[Xalith]

So anyways, @Nihilist Virus , I'd like to ask you a few questions:

1). You do realize the Jews did not believe in Christ, and heavily persecuted Christians, right?
2). You recognize that the symbol of Christ (and Christianity by extension) is a cross, right?
3). You recognize that the Torah (most of the Old Testament) was written before Christ's birth, right? (Dead Sea Scrolls prove this)
4). You recognize that Crucifixion was not of Jewish invention (it started in Persia and the Romans copied it), right?

You want to tell me why there's a very distinct cross displayed in Numbers 2?

Is that just coincidence, or did the Jews somehow decide to write a book that says "thou shalt camp like this" to make a cross formation, a symbol that wouldn't be used for another thousand+ years for a Messiah that they didn't even believe in, before crucifixion was even invented (this happened way before Persia was a thing)?

In case you're wondering what I'm going on about, watch this video (it's short, so don't worry):

So... got any explanations as to why the Jews would insist upon camping in a cross formation when the Jews did not believe in Christ nor Christianity?

They camped that way... because God told them to because the Cross is a symbol that God chose. He had them do this to insert yet more links that tell the reader that the Old Testament is meant to be linked to the New Testament.

The Old Testament predicts the New Testament which wasn't even written yet.

I don't know of anybody who can write a book that anticipates that another book will be written 2,000 years later that compliments it, especially when the people who will write the books 2,000 years later were persecuted and hated by the group that wrote the first book.

There's absolutely no way the Jews would have collaborated with the Christians, and there's no way the Christians could have retro-actively changed the Book of Numbers (remember: Dead Sea Scrolls and the existence of the Torah long before Christ came).

So, uh...

I don't know how else to explain this, other than a divine being orchestrating all of this.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

1 Chronicles 13:5 never claimed to be a chronological list, though. The only clue that you get, is it mentions Johanan being "firstborn" (again, this could mean chronological OR legal) and it says "second, third and fourth". It does not say "they were born in this order" or anything of the sort. It doesn't say "This one was born, and then this one was born, and then this one was born" (like in Genesis with Jacob's sons), either.

That tells me that this list could very easily be a legal order and not a chronological order.

Then why does the ISV say this:

 

[Xalith]

Then why does the ISV say this:

I could release a new translation, and call it the XNT (Xalith's New Translation) and I could make it say anything I want to say. Doesn't mean it is true.

When dealing with the Bible (or any important writing for that matter), one really should seek the first edition, or at least the earliest edition possible when a question arises.

Every time it is re-translated (just look up the NIV sometime if you want a load of junk), stuff gets lost or mis-translated, or skewed for political reasons. The best is probably the 1611 KJV but not very many people have a 1611 KJV, so they gotta settle for a 1711 instead (which is the one that nearly everybody has heard/read from), which isn't bad, per se. I consider it the "base" English Translation.

And again, Hebrew/Greek.

If you got a question, go back to the Hebrew/Greek to remove all translation errors. The Hebrew says basically the same thing the KJV does: It names Johanan as the "Firstborn" but says "second, third, fourth" (but does not say "born"). They have words for second-born, but yet that word was not used in this passage. Maybe, because, that's not what was meant?

 

[PapaZoom]

Versions are translations from source documents. Focus on those. It's irrelevant if versions seen to say different things. One say thou shall not murder. Another says kill.

That is not a contradiction.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There are three possibilities, logically speaking.
1) We came from nothing.
2) We came from something
3) We came from everything (that is, God)

OK.

I doubt Galileo said that. That sounds more like something derived from Descartes.

I didn't claim Galileo said that. I was copy/pasting someone else's signature.

Math is actually a system of proofs. I don't think you understand what math is.

Firstly, no axiomatic system can verify its own axioms, meaning that mathematics is, at the absolute best, a system comprised of nothing but assumptions, definitions, and then the conclusions that follow. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be proven from assumptions and definitions. There are only conditional proofs; every proof ever demonstrated is conditional upon the truth value of its axioms. We generally make good use of mathematics because we chose axioms which seem to be congruent with reality, but we already see that our system of logic does not apply to the quantum world because electrons can and do interact with themselves, and interfere with themselves, meaning we have to relinquish either the law of excluded middle or the law of identity. That is, these laws not only fail to be true in any absolute sense, but they fail to be true even in our own universe. It only follows that the law of non-contradiction, while seemingly being unfeasible as false in this universe, is still nothing but an assumption which need not be true in all possible realities.

Secondly, you will notice that in every spoken language on earth, all words are defined in terms of other words. So if we have a sentence like, "The ball is red," and we replace "ball" with its definition, then we have a longer sentence; since we will never arrive at a word which requires no definition, it follows that this process iterates indefinitely. Logic and mathematics avoid this by employing primitive terms that have no definition. So in mathematics, the equality "2+2=4" can be expressed as the function+:ZxZ --> Z such that +(2,2)=2+2=4. This decomposes further because we construct the natural numbers where 0=Ø, 1=Øunion{Ø}={Ø}, 2={Ø}union{{Ø}}={Ø,{Ø}}, and etc., and also an ordered pair (a,b) is defined as {a, {b}} so that +(2,2)=2+2=4 is expressed entirely in primitive, undefined terms: +({Ø,{Ø}},{{Ø,{Ø}}}) is contained in {Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}, and vice versa.

So we see that logic and mathematics are the use of terms that have no meaning which are said to be expressing an unverifiable assumption that is then used to conditionally prove another arbitrary statement which also decomposes into terms that have no meaning. Not quite seeing where "truth" comes into play, nor do I see where you are founded in rejecting the formalization of the meaninglessness of mathematics.

Yes, sometimes numbers do not add up.

OK.

 

[Xalith]

Versions are translations from source documents. Focus on those. It's irrelevant if versions seen to say different things. One say thou shall not murder. Another says kill.

That is not a contradiction.

My "favorite" (/sarcasm) is how the NIV changes Mark 2:17:

KJV: When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

NIV: On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Do you notice something missing? Two very important words: to repentance.

Omitting those two words basically changes the entire meaning. The KJV makes it clear he wants the sinners to repent, as he's calling them to do so.

The NIV makes it sound like Jesus is calling the sinners to follow him and leaves out repentance entirely (which is why a lot of Christians nowadays are claiming to be Christians, but are living sinful lifestyles).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I could release a new translation, and call it the XNT (Xalith's New Translation) and I could make it say anything I want to say. Doesn't mean it is true.

When dealing with the Bible (or any important writing for that matter), one really should seek the first edition, or at least the earliest edition possible when a question arises.

Every time it is re-translated (just look up the NIV sometime if you want a load of junk), stuff gets lost or mis-translated, or skewed for political reasons. The best is probably the 1611 KJV but not very many people have a 1611 KJV, so they gotta settle for a 1711 instead (which is the one that nearly everybody has heard/read from), which isn't bad, per se. I consider it the "base" English Translation.

And again, Hebrew/Greek.

If you got a question, go back to the Hebrew/Greek to remove all translation errors. The Hebrew says basically the same thing the KJV does: It names Johanan as the "Firstborn" but says "second, third, fourth" (but does not say "born"). They have words for second-born, but yet that word was not used in this passage. Maybe, because, that's not what was meant?

If you want to go around disavowing certain translations, start with the KJV. I haven't read the 1611 version but presumably it has the same problem: 2 Kings 8:26 disagrees with 2 Chronicles 22:2.

 

[Xalith]

If you want to go around disavowing certain translations, start with the KJV. I haven't read the 1611 version but presumably it has the same problem: 2 Kings 8:26 disagrees with 2 Chronicles 22:2.

It's far too late for me to research that one quite yet, but I will.

My prediction: The same problem with the laver measurement in 1 Kings 7:23. Wanna know why that appears to be wrong? Simple: Hebrew letters and a poor understanding of how Hebrew scribes worked when it was translated. In actuality, it is ridiculously accurate if you know the truth behind the Hebrew letter thing, in fact, it's THE most accurate measurement of Pi until modern days.

But we'll see what happens when I research it tomorrow if I get time.