What would be the evidence for ex nihilo creation?

[JohnR7]

If it disagrees with the King James Bible - it's wrong.

I ignore your signature because it's wrong.

You think that the Bible is "wrong"?
Even if people do not understand the Bible, that does not make the Bible wrong.
The whole world can be wrong and still God will always be faithful and true.
What He says He will do, He will do. He watchers over His word to perform it.

Romans 3:4a Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.

Isaiah 55:11
So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

 

[AV1611VET]

He did put it in writing, and it has his name on it.

I even have one of his books collecting his beliefs.

Where is God's name as author of the Bible?

Here is just one example:

[bible]2 Timothy 3:16[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

AV,

You're wrong.

Sincerely,
God

(See how easy that is?)

I sure do! Pretty nifty, eh?

 

[OdwinOddball]

How would you know what Einstein believed, unless he put it down in writing?

We know what Einstein believed(or rather, what he said he believed), based on the writings that he put his name to, on the expeirences of those who knew him(including those still alive today), and on the impact that his work had.

We know what he belived because he expressed these beliefs, and because we know he exists. We have actual evidence that he exists. Recorded, documented evidence that Albert Einstein was a real person.

We do not have the same for your god though. The only reason we have any need to question wether your god exists or not is a single book that wasn't even written by the being in question.

No evidence. Just the personal experince and wishes of those who have chosen to believe him. And yet you have somehow decided that this is a better judge of reality than reality itslef. It truely is fascinating the fantasies people can create for themselves to protect their core beliefs. No evidence, just a steadfast refusal to even consider the possibility that what you think and believe could be wrong. And somehow you think such a close minded, ignorance based view is something we should accept and cherish?

 

[OdwinOddball]

Here is just one example:

[bible]2 Timothy 3:16[/bible]

And that means nothing.

It is no more valid than this:

I am god. Everything I say is right.. This post is my testimony. This post is the word of god.

So sayeth the god Odwin.

 

[JohnR7]

No evidence.

This is a science form. You need to provide evidence. So where is your scientific evidence to back up what your saying? If you have no evidence, then perhaps you may want to argue on the apologics form where your not required to back up your opinions with solid scientific evidence.

 

[JohnR7]

And that means nothing.

It means something, because you can not falsify it. You can not show that it is not true.

For at least 200 years people have been gathering scientific evidence for the Bible.
They have shown again and again and again that the Bible is true.
If the Bible says it, then you can trust and believe what God tell you is true.
God watchs over His word to perform it. He does what He says He will do.

 

[OdwinOddball]

This is a science form. You need to provide evidence. So where is your scientific evidence to back up what your saying? If you have no evidence, then perhaps you may want to argue on the apologics form where your not required to back up your opinions with solid scientific evidence.

John. Thats just plain sad coming from you, the King of Non Sequitors and Naked Assertions. The poster who has claimed to have evidence more often than any other, yet has never produced it.

I claim there is NO evidence. The only way to refute that, is to bring forth evidence.

If you have some, hey, bring it out. We've only asked you to about a thousand times now.


Still waiting.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if the KJV of the Bible said that trees were purple, and you looked at a tree, and it looked green, you'd say that your eyes were wrong?

'If' is a big word, but to help you out with a real example --- speaking of the Tabernacle:

And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins...

ram skins dyed red and hides of sea cows...

Guess which one I believe?

 

[AV1611VET]

Romans 3:4a Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JohnR7 again.

Sorry, John, I tried!

 

[JohnR7]

John. Thats just plain sad coming from you.

What is sad is that you reject the scientific evidence I give you.
You will only accept evidence that backs up what you want to believe.
You reject evidence for the truth, then you mock God on top of that.
Be careful that you do not receive the same back from God.

Proverbs 1:26
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,

 

[nvxplorer]

It means something, because you can not falsify it. You can not show that it is not true.

Correct, which supports Odwin's statement that it is (scientifically) meaningless.

 

[Chalnoth]

Guess which one I believe?

But that example doesn't even matter. I'm not worried about different translations disagreeing. I'm talking about places in the Bible that are in clear disagreement with reality, such as the account of the global flood. The account of the global flood makes about as much sense when compared against geological evidence as if the Bible had said that trees were purple.

 

[Chalnoth]

What is sad is that you reject the scientific evidence I give you.
You will only accept evidence that back up what you want to believe.

I don't recall you ever posting any evidence. Care to provide a link to a thread where you have?

 

[nvxplorer]

You think that the Bible is "wrong"?
Even if people do not understand the Bible, that does not make the Bible wrong.
The whole world can be wrong and still God will always be faithful and true.
What He says He will do, He will do. He watchers over His word to perform it.

By the same token, even if the Bible is wrong, and God does exist, the Bible is still wrong, and God still exists.

See how (logically) meaningless these claims can be?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by Exodus 25:5 --- King James Version
And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins...

Originally Posted by Exodus 25:5 --- New International Version

ram skins dyed red and hides of sea cows...

Guess which one I believe?

perhaps a few moments learning from the world around us would help.

the hebrew word is:
tachash

which Strong's defines as:
1) a kind of leather, skin, or animal hide
a) perhaps the animal yielding the skin
1) perhaps the badger or dugong, dolphin, or sheep or a now extinct animal

from: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/8/1160163585-8182.html

googling yields:

The ancient versions seem nearly all agreed that it denotes not an animal but a color, either black or sky-blue. The badger is not found in the Bible lands. The Arab duchash or tufchash denotes a dolphin, including seals and cetaceans. The skins referred to are probably those of these marine animals, some of which are found in the Red Sea. The skin of the Halicore , one of these, from its hardness would be well suited for making soles for shoes. (Ezekiel 16:10)

from: http://www.christnotes.org/dictionary.php?dict=sbd&id=559

blue processed skins
(Rabbi Yehudah, Yerushalmi, Shabbath 2:3; Arukh s.v. Teynun; Koheleth Rabbah 1:9; Josephus 3:6:1, 3:6:4; Septuagint; Aquilla). Tachash in Hebrew. Others have 'black leather' (Saadia; Ibn Janach), that is, leather worked in such a manner as to come out dark and waterproof (Avraham ben HaRambam). In ancient Egyptian, tachash also denotes a kind of specially worked leather. See Ezekiel 16:10.
Other sources identify tachash as a species of animal. Some say that it is the ermine (Rabbi Nechemia, Yerushalmi, loc. cit.; Arukh, s.v. glaksinon. The word galy axeinon denotes the ermine, a member of the weasel family imported by the Axenoi (see Jastrow). Others state that it is a member of the badger family (Rashi on Ezekiel 16:10).
Others say that it is a colorful one-horned animal known as a keresh (Yerushalmi, loc. cit., Shabbath 28b; Tanchuma 6; Rashi; cf. Chullin 59b). Some say that this is a species of wild ram (Ralbag), possibly an antelope, okape or giraffe. Some see the one-horned creature as the narwhal (Mondon monoceros) which has its left tooth developed into a single long horn-like appendage. This animal, which can grow to be over 16 feet long, is occasionally found on the southern Sinai shores.
In Arabic, tukhush denotes the sea cow or dugong (Dugong hempirchi) an aquatic mammal which is found on the shores of the Sinai. Some thus say that the tachash is a type of seal, since its skins were used for the tabernacle's roof, and sealskins were often used for this purpose (cf. Pliny 2:56).

from: http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?action=displayanchor&pentid=P2194#C1533


what is obvious is that it is not badger as in american or european badgers for they did not exist in Palestine, but rather something like a weasel. Whatever the case to insist a priori that the KJV is right, is certainly wrong. The Hebrew and Greek take precedence. the NIV with it's dugong is a actually a good reading with adequate precedence.

 

[JohnR7]

Correct, which supports Odwin's statement that it is (scientifically) meaningless.

You are mistaken, you would have to throw out all of science as being meaningless if you applied that standard.

We are trying to warn you, that is all. There is danger in the attitude you have. If it were not going to cause anyone any harm then we would not care.

Most of what I do on here is just playing around. But this rejection of God is a very dangerous attitude to have.
It means He will not be there for you in your time of need and that is NOT a place where I would want to be.

If you do not want to accept the warning that God give you, then be prepared to accept the consequences of that.

 

[Loudmouth]

God believes in it --- that's good enough for me.

[bible]Job 26:7[/bible][bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

If the world were created last Thursday then the Bible is untrustworthy. Since you can not disprove this . . .

Your "no evidence for ex nihilo creation" makes any experience or record untrustworthy, including the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that means nothing.

It is no more valid than this:

I am god. Everything I say is right.. This post is my testimony. This post is the word of god.

So sayeth the god Odwin.

Many "gods" in history have tried that, and many "gods" paid the price.

Here are three well-known examples:

• [bible]Exodus 12:12[/bible]
• [bible]1 Kings 18:22-24[/bible]
• [bible]Daniel 4:34-37[/bible]

I guess the saying is true that they that don't know the past are bound to repeat it?

 

[Loudmouth]

How would you know what Einstein believed, unless he put it down in writing?

How do you know that Einstein even existed? What evidence would an ex nihilo creation event last Thursday, complete with a false history including Einstein, leave so we could trust any written record?