-->
@PGA2.0
Such as current scientific observations, data, evidence and explanations. If you can't bothered to educate yourself on what's going on in this regard, you don't really have a position to opine on such things.
Why Didn't God Write the Bible?
Posts
Total:
110
Ok Why didn't God write the bible.
It seems the reason why gods didnt write the bible is because.
Try make a checkerboard pattern without thinking about it.
Look over here , :::::::,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:look .
You cant prove a negative , hyena whales .
The chicken did.
And ill fininsh of with, you cant prove evolution you fool.
This is just Some of the reasons why gods cant can't write books.
I'd say god did write the bible. Well after you've translated 10 or so scriptures , and you know FULL WELL you translated 3 of them 10 scriptures better then any other man ever has before.
You start to know god made this book for you.
There isn't one theist on this site that is not currently in the top 100 of Scripture deciphering of like ALLLLL TIME.
SOoooloooo gods do write bibles specifically for Brian. Timothy , Jessica ,
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr SCRIPTURE...... Ya wouldn't ave ya God speak anything but.
I now ask for 8 seconds to think anout the mind of the bloke whom at that metting that night said.
Hey what do you reckon we get Gods to speak " scripture"..
Think of his mind, go.
1
And a 2
And 3 .
And a 4 and a 5
And 6
7
And there.
Brilliant hey.
The bible
But my real answer to why god didnt write the bible is .
Because there wouldn't be a bible if gods wrote them because god's aint gods aint gods.
-->
@Goldtop
I can think of only a limited amount of possibilities such as:1) life was created,2) life came about by chance,3) life is an illusion.But, that's only what you can think of, yet there are other alternative you haven't thought of, hence you're making your decisions based on personal incredulity and ignorance. Just because you haven't educated yourself, doesn't mean others haven't also.Such as?Such as current scientific observations, data, evidence and explanations. If you can't bothered to educate yourself on what's going on in this regard, you don't really have a position to opine on such things.
And, pray tell, how does scientific observation fall outside of one of these three categories??? Either you look at the DATA and interpret it from a naturalist or supernatural viewpoint or you think it is all an illusion. Where you start is usually where you end up. I look at the scientific evidence in a way that confirms God's existence, as great men of science in the past did, such as Sir Isaac Newton.
Newton saw science as a way of investigating God's creation and finding out more about his Creator. Darwin saw science as a way or separating God from creation. One looked at science as a way of confirming God and the other looked as science as a way of denying God.
Newton saw science as a way of investigating God's creation and finding out more about his Creator. Darwin saw science as a way or separating God from creation. One looked at science as a way of confirming God and the other looked as science as a way of denying God.
-->
@PGA2.0
That's not science, that's being biased. You look at the data and it will tell us how reality works, no interpretations required.Either you look at the DATA and interpret it from a naturalist or supernatural viewpoint
I look at the scientific evidence in a way that confirms God's existence
That's being biased and is not how science works. There is absolutely nothing in any scientific data that has ever confirmed any gods existence, including your God.
Newton saw science as a way of investigating God's creation and finding out more about his Creator
Yet, Newton found nothing about any Creator.
Darwin saw science as a way or separating God from creation.
That is entirely and completely false. Darwin was being a scientist without the same bias as you have. He looked at the data and realized all living things evolved.
Clearly, you have a deep bias against science and what science has discovered. It's no wonder why you know so little about it and that which you do know is wrong.
-->
@Goldtop
Either you look at the DATA and interpret it from a naturalist or supernatural viewpointThat's not science, that's being biased. You look at the data and it will tell us how reality works, no interpretations required.
You confuse science with scientism.
Origins of life or the universe are not repeatable events, otherwise, we could experiment and recreate the universe or life from non-life. So these are assumptions based on looking at life from a particular point of view and interpreting it from that point of view. Around the time of the "Age of Reason" and the "Darwinian revolution" there was a paradigm shift in the way human beings looked at life and the universe. The man became the measure instead of God. Thus, instead of naturalism being the mode God used to create and sustain the universe, it became the universe as that means of creation and the universe sustaining itself. The focus shifted to finding answers by human measures alone.
When you say, "you look at the data and IT WILL TELL US HOW REALITY WORKS" - this is patently false. Data does not tell us anything. How we interpret that data guide us in our thinking. As I said, the focus since the Enlightenment has been on human beings, for the most part, as the measure of all things. We no longer try to do what Newton did, that is, think God's thoughts after Him.
I look at the scientific evidence in a way that confirms God's existenceThat's being biased and is not how science works. There is absolutely nothing in any scientific data that has ever confirmed any gods existence, including your God.
News flash: We are all biased. There is NO neutrality. You either approach the science of origins from a Creator/creation bias or from nature/naturalism point of view.
Newton saw science as a way of investigating God's creation and finding out more about his CreatorYet, Newton found nothing about any Creator.
Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.
“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
― Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
“God who gave Animals self-motion beyond our understanding is without doubt able to implant other principles of motion in bodies [which] we may understand as little. Some would readily grant this may be a Spiritual one; yet a mechanical one might be showne, did not I think it better to pass it by.”
― Isaac Newton, The Correspondence of Isaac Newton: Published for the Royal Society. VOLUMES 1 through 7
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.”
― Isaac Newton
So, Newton tried to think of things in terms of God's creation. He was discovering how God directed nature to His will.
Darwin saw science as a way or separating God from creation.That is entirely and completely false. Darwin was being a scientist without the same bias as you have. He looked at the data and realized all living things evolved.
His presupposition was that all living things evolved from a common ancestor and he broke away from the common idea of each to its own kind. Thus, he rejected the biblical revelation. His theory was another one of those paradigm shifts that denied God His creative abilities.
Clearly, you have a deep bias against science and what science has discovered. It's no wonder why you know so little about it and that which you do know is wrong.
And clearly you have a deep bias against God and the discovery of His thoughts in creating the universe. We do science because there is a uniformity of nature. There is no reason in a universe devoid of God why we should be able to do this. Science relies on there being uniformity. There would be no laws, and no science, without things happening in the same manner repeatedly.
-->
@PGA2.0
Prove it, don't just assert it.You confuse science with scientism.
Origins of life or the universe are not repeatable events, otherwise, we could experiment and recreate the universe or life from non-life.
Please tell us how to recreate life in a laboratory? Since the process took millions of years, please tell us how to recreate an experiment that represents millions of years? This is your ignorance of science.
The focus shifted to finding answers by human measures alone.
That's because Religions failed to provide answers that align with the evidence of nature. This again is your ignorance of science.
Data does not tell us anything. How we interpret that data guide us in our thinking.
Wrong, the data tells us everything, you are biased to interpret it. Again, your ignorance of science.
News flash: We are all biased. There is NO neutrality.
No, YOU are biased, YOU had no neutrality. Science MUST be neutral or else we would never learn anything. YOU are biased, that's why you never learn anything. Again, your ignorance of science.
Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator
Newton never found a Creator, ever. No one has found a Creator. It's all about faith and bias.
So, Newton tried to think of things in terms of God's creation. He was discovering how God directed nature to His will.
If Newton were alive today and understood current scientific theories, he would know he was wrong about that, just like you are.
Thus, he rejected the biblical revelation.
Wrong, Darwin did no such thing. Your ignorance is huge on the topic of science.
And clearly you have a deep bias against God
That's impossible, God would have to exist before I could have a bias against God. Not only that, I have never said anything against your God to show a bias. That's a big fail on your part. Another lame excuse for you not being able to form a valid argument.
We do science because there is a uniformity of nature
No, we do science because we want to learn. You don't want to learn, you want to remain ignorant and biased.
There is no reason in a universe devoid of God why we should be able to do this. Science relies on there being uniformity. There would be no laws, and no science, without things happening in the same manner repeatedly.
Word salad, meaningless.
We have now established your massive ignorance of science, hence you have no position to comment on the topic. Pretty much everything you say is wrong and biased. Perhaps, you're best to stay away from this topic and try to work your way back to the topic and tell us why God didn't write the Bible?
-->
@Goldtop
You confuse science with scientism.Prove it, don't just assert it.
Science tests repeatable and experiential data. In the case of origins, no one was there. We can't repeat to verify the theories. We rely on the present as a key to the past. We build in a lot of assumptions. We don't know whether the present conditions are the same of the past, so we have to interpret the data with the evidence we have available NOW.
Origins of life or the universe are not repeatable events, otherwise, we could experiment and recreate the universe or life from non-life.Please tell us how to recreate life in a laboratory? Since the process took millions of years, please tell us how to recreate an experiment that represents millions of years? This is your ignorance of science.
That is why it is not science.
You assume the process can happen over millions of years. Time is your magic ingredient.
The focus shifted to finding answers by human measures alone.That's because Religions failed to provide answers that align with the evidence of nature. This again is your ignorance of science.
The Bible is not a science book. It is a revelational book. The main purpose of the Bible is to describe the problem God has with humanity and provide the His solution. God is speaking at a relational level to what we call an ancient people primarily and secondarily to us since we too need the same solution to repair the relationship.
Data does not tell us anything. How we interpret that data guide us in our thinking.Wrong, the data tells us everything, you are biased to interpret it. Again, your ignorance of science.
No, you are wrong. Data does not speak. You use personification but data is an inanimate object. We gather information and draw conclusions from the data. Data does not say, "I'm 50,000,000 years old. It all depends on whether we correctly interpret the data as to the conclusions we gather from it.
News flash: We are all biased. There is NO neutrality.No, YOU are biased, YOU had no neutrality. Science MUST be neutral or else we would never learn anything. YOU are biased, that's why you never learn anything. Again, your ignorance of science.
I do not deny my bias. I never stated I was neutral. You do (see underlined). Accepting the truth is not a neutral stance. Something either IS true or it is NOT true. It can't be both. Accepting both is biased in itself. Accepting falsehood is a bias. I tolerate falsehood even when I know it is wrong and held by my opponent.
Torance is accepting someone who has counter views as still being human and still deserving of dignity and the love of God. If I don't forgive others I trample the grace of God that He has given me.
As for science, I believe in science. I question many of the theories and beliefs that scientist hold in regards to events that cannot be verified by repeating the events.
-->
@Goldtop
Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creatorNewton never found a Creator, ever. No one has found a Creator. It's all about faith and bias.
Back that statement up with fact.
So, Newton tried to think of things in terms of God's creation. He was discovering how God directed nature to His will.If Newton were alive today and understood current scientific theories, he would know he was wrong about that, just like you are.
Some of his views were true and are still used today.
Newton's wide range of discoveries, from his theories of optics to his groundbreaking work on the laws of motion and gravity, formed the basis for modern physics.
https://www.livescience.com/4965-
isaac
-newton-changed-world.html
The First Law of Motion states, "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
The Second Law of Motion describes what happens to a massive body when it is acted upon by an external force. It states, "The force acting on an object is equal to the mass of that object times its acceleration." This is written in mathematical form as F = ma, where F is
force
, m is mass, and a is
acceleration.
The
Third Law of Motion states, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This law describes what happens to a body when it exerts a force on another body.
The three laws have been verified by countless experiments over the past three centuries, and they are still being widely used to this day to describe the kinds of objects and speeds that we encounter in everyday life. They form the foundation of what is now known as
classical mechanics, which is the study of massive objects that are larger than the very small scales addressed by quantum mechanics and that are moving slower than the very high speeds addressed by relativistic mechanics.
Thus, he rejected the biblical revelation.Wrong, Darwin did no such thing. Your ignorance is huge on the topic of science.
No, he changed the way people looked at both science and God.
And clearly you have a deep bias against GodThat's impossible, God would have to exist before I could have a bias against God. Not only that, I have never said anything against your God to show a bias. That's a big fail on your part. Another lame excuse for you not being able to form a valid argument.
Speaking from a limited, subjective human being who denies God and is deaf, dumb and blind to God, I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.
We do science because there is a uniformity of natureNo, we do science because we want to learn. You don't want to learn, you want to remain ignorant and biased.
Science is not possible without natures uniformity. We could predict nothing unless we were confident it was constant. There would be no laws without constants. Why do we find constants in a mindless, unintentional happenstance universe? These are questions you have no answers to that are reasonable.
There is no reason in a universe devoid of God why we should be able to do this. Science relies on there being uniformity. There would be no laws, and no science, without things happening in the same manner repeatedly.Word salad, meaningless.We have now established your massive ignorance of science, hence you have no position to comment on the topic. Pretty much everything you say is wrong and biased. Perhaps, you're best to stay away from this topic and try to work your way back to the topic and tell us why God didn't write the Bible?
What have you established? All you have done is assert in answer to my questions and concerns about the reasonableness of your worldview.
No Creator was found. Show me any documentation that shows a Creator was found?Back that statement up with fact.
Some of his views were true and are still used today.
Math and physics, yes. His religious views were like anyone else. Is there some point you're harping on about Newton?
No, he changed the way people looked at both science and God.
He didn't, the evidence he discovered changed the world, just like a lot of other scientific discoveries. Lot's of people still believe in God, what are you complaining about?
Speaking from a limited, subjective human being who denies God and is deaf, dumb and blind to God
You're just resorting to childish tactics and using the lame excuse that I don't believe what you believe. I guess you're telling me you have no argument?
Science is not possible without natures uniformity. We could predict nothing unless we were confident it was constant. There would be no laws without constants. Why do we find constants in a mindless, unintentional happenstance universe? These are questions you have no answers to that are reasonable.
You keep demonstrating how incredibly ignorant you are about science, why do you insist on doing that?
What have you established?
We've established an enormous gap of knowledge and understanding about anything scientific in your posts, yet you continue to opine about things you simply have no concept.
-->
@disgusted
The exodus didn't happen and the rest of your drivel is incomprehensible.
// i posted (started a topic) the "12" COMMANDMENTS and numbered them. then i listed 3 verses where the word "ten" is stated as how many COMMANDMENTS they said WAS WRITTEN.
now when i claim their is re editing going on in the bible and shown their word saying 10, is this not evidence of re editing?
i will now state those editors that are re editing the text. did i not also prove they started with text not their own. for if it was their text i would have only found 10 COMMANDMENTS.
please give me your reasoning on the 10/12 COMMANDMENTS..
now for the exodus. do you have proof to say this didnt happen?
all we have are words written long ago AND HAVE been shown their is re edited going on. to which i will point out again in exodus. Moses and Aaron both would have known the name of the king of egypt they spake to him. yet 22 times in the bible we find the greek word pharoah, meaning a linage of kings in egypt.
all 22 times the word pharoah is used. 21 times is; king pharoah. and 1 time pharoah king. yet of the 21 times we would have found a name like the other times the word king is used. ex. king David, king Solomon.
for you to just say it didnt happen. and me showing the re editing. again it is plain the see those editing words into "a text not their own" gives a reasoning of a people witnessing the exodus and men reediting it.
-->
@eash
4 million people and livestock wondering a handkerchief sized desert for forty years and they didn't so much as leave a sandle strap or chicken bone. Oh deary me. It didn't happen. They had to beg and let their god have his infanticidal desires met when they had an army of 600,000 men.
The Romans ruled the world in 1AD with an army of 150,000 men. 600,000 cowards does not an army make.
-->
@disgusted
people who study the numbers in the bible know not to trust the numbers. i dont think there is any college professor that trusts numbers.
i know by the wagons/carts the israelis used tells me they didnt go into the mountainous range in the sinia. because their carts they used to leave egypt build HIS TENT and FENCING for HIS COURTYARD. these board are 15' long and were made for moving bricks. which once broke up how did the people haul their goods. the courtyard is 100 cubits all around. that is a lot of boards for the fence. the flooring was 20 cubits by 30 cubits.
i noticed you didnt answer the re editing. which again i will point out the numbers in the bible dont make since in 90% of the times numbers are used. bad editing by the re editing editors.
-->
@eash
WTF are you rambling about?
-->
@disgusted
sorry, i thought you read what happened when the Chosen People left egypt. in the sinia YHVH TOLD Moses to build a TENT FOR MEETING WITH HIM. they needed wood planks to make the flooring and structure to hang the hides for HIS TENT and a few articles inside the TENT and the Altars with a fence for the Courtyard.
these planks came from their carts are the carts would be very long. 10 cubits (this number 10 is the number used to say what size a cubit is. because men needed to walk in and out the TENT) was the length for many of these pieces. 1 cubit = 16" or 18". which makes these planks 15' long max. and by my count they needed over 450 planks. (brick carts would be 15' long and have to have oxen pulling then) the cart width would be 3 planks wide max. thus they would have broken down over 150 carts carrying their goods. and the cart lengths tells me they couldnt travel through the mountains in the sinia that people have made maps of their path going to saudia arabia.
knowing they used very long carts dictates there travels in the sinai. thus 40 years we know is not true by the water needed. and when Moses stuck the rocks to make a rivercome out. means they had water right there for the maybe less than 4 years in the sinai. Moses did not go around strike rocks to make rivers come out every 30 miles.
reasoning out what is done in the storied of the bible gives us a better truth to understand the stories in the bible. and by this reasoning anyone can now know some of the text that was re edited in the bible.
now if you think about the river being MADE after a few days of travel into the sinai. and then the battle with the amaleks. for why would they travel into arabia and back to a place that they had water. this means they stayed in the same place for less than 4 years.
what reasoning do you say the exodus did not happen?
-->
@eash
sorry, i thought you read what happened when the Chosen People left egypt
They were never there, read some history.
in the sinia YHVH TOLD Moses to build a TENT
In or out of the Sinai a fictional god never told a fictional Moses anything.
You seem to make claims about knowledge that you cannot posses.
Whatever is written in the bible can be unarguably dismissed, read the actions and conversations allegedly recorded in genesis by someone who quite patently didn't exist if the story has even the most minuscule veracity.
This Christmas, millions will recite the Genesis story, words written 6,000+ ago will ring out all over the world. And millions will worship, praise, thank, and adore Him to whom other kings bow.
His name will be reverently whispered by millions in every language in every culture in every corner of the globe. His acts will be re-inacted, His comments spoken again, and millions will find joy and peace in His person and message.
The atheist will be in his dank, dark, corner, fuming and bitter, like a blind ant, shaking his fist at the sun.
I think I'll break out in my happy dance!
-->
@disgusted
this board is named religion. therefore one must know it is a belief for some and people like me we know the first writers witneesed our CREATOR. you seem to think your claim there is no God written in the bible. yet that is your claim without evidence. therefore it is only your belief and you should leave this board.
if i ever post to you again please ignore the post. you have nothing of value to take away or add from a religion on a religion board.
-->
@ethang5
This Christmas, millions will recite the Genesis story, words written 6,000+ ago will ring out all over the world. And millions will worship, praise, thank, and adore Him to whom other kings bow.
And multi billions will take no notice of the ridiculous claims made in genesis. The words were actually written about 2,500yrs ago but don't let the truth influence whatever story you want to tell. Billions won't worship or praise this fictional character so your ad populum argument fails as usual.
His name will be reverently whispered by millions in every language in every culture in every corner of the globe. His acts will be re-inacted, His comments spoken again, and millions will find joy and peace in His person and message.
What you mean is that some people will be deluded by the stories about this mythical characters and actually believe, erroneously, that these mythical characters actually said something. It's funny really.
The atheist will be in his dank, dark, corner, fuming and bitter, like a blind ant, shaking his fist at the sun.
You do know that this is just more overwhelming evidence that you have no idea what atheism is and are therefore unqualified in the extreme to even refer to atheists. As an atheist it's obvious from our interactions that I am far happier than you are. But godists are in constant fear and that makes happiness difficult to achieve.
-->
@eash
Who did you claim recorded the actions and conversations purported to have occurred in the GoE story in genesis.Your fear of me is detrimental to your mental stability.