Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
often non Christians are proven to be wrong even to the point of fraud and counterfeiting the evidence.
Here is a small sample size:
Theological doctrines:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
I bougth a new car one time and I was satisfied with it. Then it developed problems and I was no longer satisfied with it. I kept it and got it fixed and then I was satisified with it again.
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
Neither verse says God will dwell there. Only His name, eyes and heart will be there.
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
One evening I was in the bedroom with the light on and I was drweling in the light. I got sleepy and turned the light off and until morning I was dwelling in the darkness.
Also, none of the verse you posted have
"dwell" in them.
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
Jn 1:18 - God is spirit and no man has seen that aspect of Him. No man has seen God's full glory, therefore they have not seen the essens of Him
Jn 5:37 - The heard literally but they did not understand
Ex 33:30 is limited to one characeristic.
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17 - Tired or rest is not in that verse.
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things.
Gen 11:5/ He knew what they did, He came down to see. Remember God is omnipresent as you just poinntd o ut.
Gen 18:20,21/ Same as above.
Gen 3:8(9) - They hid from God but He knew where thery were. He wanted them to reveal tehmselves to Him.
This is getting boring. If you want to continue, pick what you think are the best 5 and I will respond to them. Try to make sure the word you reference is atually in the verse you reference.
kermit
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14
10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13
12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17
13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28
14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19
God is kind, merciful, and good
James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/
1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,
sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings,
sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12
18. God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31
19. God tempts men
Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13
God tempts no man
James 1:13
20. God cannot lie
Heb 6:18
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits t deceive
2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9
21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
Gen 6:5,7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
Gen 8:21
22. God's attributes are revealed in his works.
Rom 1:20
God's attributes cannot be discovered
Job 11:7/ Is 40:28
23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7
I have "faith" in them because they work.For one example, you take by faith that the instruments used by scientists in dating objects as billions of years old are accurate.
That's because you don't mind mixing apples and oranges. Faith in a technique that produces measurable results is quite different from faith in what scripture calls "the unseen." I am very willing to drop my faith in radioisotope dating, if it is found to be inaccurate. Are you willing to drop yoru faith in the bible if it is found to be inaccurate?I was avoiding nothing. Your question tried to conveniently exclude your personal beliefs from the answer. I don't see your beliefs as any different from any other faith.
Evolutionists tend to fight among themselves more then they fight with non evolutionists. They put on a good face for the recruits. But for the troops there is not nearly as much agreement as they want people to believe there is.Often? Really? And when these frauds are found, who exposes them?
I think you will find that the exact opposite is true, if you read the Bible without anyone prompting you it is barbaric.
People only read the Bible to confirm what they want to believe, they pass over the parts they dislike or twist them so they don't seem so bad, if it's read as it was written it should turn decent people away from being Christians,
it's why they have priest and pastors to walk you through to tell lies about the bad parts and emphasize the good parts.
Evolutionists tend to fight among themselves more then they fight with non evolutionists. They put on a good face for the recruits. But for the troops there is not nearly as much agreement as they want people to believe there is.
Evolutionists tend to fight among themselves more then they fight with non evolutionists. They put on a good face for the recruits. But for the troops there is not nearly as much agreement as they want people to believe there is.
Good.
Let's start with the second one and get that out of the way. You are adding to what I said, just as you add to what the Bible says. I never said that the study of nature should trump Scripture. In fact, I said that it is Scripture that tells us to study nature.
Yes, Jesus once spoke about the days of Noah. That is not necessarily a claim that He believed that everything recorded in the legend of Noah is "gospel truth."
We often talk about the days of King Arthur. Generally we just mean the entire early fuedal period, without regard to the specific period of Arthur's reign. And Arthur may not have been a king at all, but just the commanding general in the war against the Saxons. Just as Eisenhower was the commanding general during World War II, but George was King of England, Winston Churchill was Prime Minister, and FDR was President of the United States.
There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the early chapters of Genesis are anything more than legendary history.
Exactly.
The more I examined the bible, the less believable the story became, to the point I was convinced I was only lying to myself to continue to believe it.[
For many years before, I believed the story, because I was ignorant to the facts behind the bible itself.
Try prayerfully studying it.
What are the facts behind the Bible.
kermit
I have "faith" in them because they work.
That's because you don't mind mixing apples and oranges. Faith in a technique that produces measurable results is quite different from faith in what scripture calls "the unseen." I am very willing to drop my faith in radioisotope dating, if it is found to be inaccurate. Are you willing to drop yoru faith in the bible if it is found to be inaccurate?
I think you will find that the exact opposite is true, if you read the Bible without anyone prompting you it is barbaric.Part of all history is barbaric and some of what we see in the world to day is barbaric. That does not make it false.
People only read the Bible to confirm what they want to believe, they pass over the parts they dislike or twist them so they don't seem so bad,Just the opposite. We detemine what we believe from what the Bible says.
if it's read as it was written it should turn decent people away from being Christians,
Christians are as decent as you are, probably more so. What do you do that makes you decent? What do you do for your fellow man?
it's why they have priest and pastors to walk you through to tell lies about the bad parts and emphasize the good parts.
You ignorance of Christianity is pathetic. It comes from pride and a lack of understanding. What lies have church leders told about what you call the bad parts?
kermit
All raido-metric dating, with the possibility of carbon 14, is based on several assumtions, making the results unreliable
All raido-metric dating, with the possibility of carbon 14, is based on several assumtions, making the results unreliable
Can a process based on assumptions be accurate?
If it can't, you need to jump to the other side of the fence. You said you would but I doubt if you will.
kermit
What facts, exactly, are in the Bible? Let's look at a few. While I did not compile these, the reader is encouraged to use them. Also, I have seen the same evidences on different sites as well.For many years before, I believed the story, because I was ignorant to the facts behind the bible itself.
Liberal scholars?
Scholars and historians are supposed to be objective in their work. Historians follow the historical method, to determine "what likely happened" in the past. The problem is, some christians throw a sissy fit when the bible is analyzed in an objective manner by historians and scholars and there will always be those who claim the bible is "off limits" when it comes to any objective critique.
Read the work of reputable NT scholars, and the majority all agree, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were penned by anonymous authors approx 30-70 years after Jesus lived.
This is well established in NT scholarship, unless you are talking about the scholars who work for theological conservative institutions and don't feel like giving up their paycheck by crossing the institutions mission statement which usually states; they believe the bible is the word of God and is inerrant.
That is pure nonsense and I bet you can't give me an example of a sissy fit a Christian has thrown unless you call challanging non-provable statement a sissy fit.
Most secular historians are pretty good, but the liberal Biblical historians are so biased their works is pathetic. If you doubt what I say, take a look at the "Jesus Seminar." They concluded that only 18% of what the Bible says Jesus said, Jesus actually said and they did not offer one shread of evidence.
The originantor made some rules for detemining if Jesus said it but he staqcked the deck to make it come out like he wanted.
That's right but that does not mean what they wrote is not true. God inspired the Bible and He told the writers what to write.
That is a cheap shot and you should be ashamed of yourself for malinging the integrity of conservative Bible scholars that you do not even know. That comment shows they have more integrity than you do.
FYI, they would give up their paycheck if they did not do an honest job in their exposition of the Bib le.
Do you have any evidence that the Bible is not God's inspired, inerrant and infallable word? No! You just like to insult people you disagree with. How sad.
kermit
A Jewish orthodox scientist whom grappled with these questions many years ago when I was starting my career, I eventually landed more or less on the theistic evolution understanding of Things. My current beliefs are a bit more complicated, but one of the things that I do not understand is the utter insistence of a simple literal reading of the text, with no exegeses at all.
As with many texts, one needs to interpret what exactly it's trying to say in the context in which it was said. Especially when we are reading it some 3000 years after it was codified.
One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way. For example, there are many instances where the Bible talks about the Hand of God, or the Nose of God. Clearly this is allegory. It HAS to be. Any other understanding negates the principle of an invisible, non corporeal god. (So here of course I am referring to the Hebrew bible and not to any corporeal manifestations described in later publications).
Furthermore, classic Jewish exegesis, relying on age old sources, at the very least over 2300 years old, explained many instances of the Bible as coming to define principles and ideas, rather than actual-law-to-be-followed. For example the Wayward Son (I think that's what he is called). Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!
What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them.
2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.
That said, the main rejoinder to this is where do I draw the line between what I call allegory and what I determine to be a literal reading. I cannot, of course, say that the commandment "though shall not kill" is simply allegory and that it's really OK and God just wanted to convey his discomfort with the idea. The answer is, again, to read what the bible is telling us. By the fact of the two disagreeing Genesis chapters, I learn that they cannot both be littoral. By the fact that an actual, planet-wide flood is impossible without jumping through some pretty high flying hoops, AND, that again, in the story of Noah there are also internal inconsistencies, I can also learn that the flood was probably not a description of an actual single event.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?