And atheists call Christians "smug." I look at current "evidence" and it leads me to conclude a design and, therefore, a god. You look at current "evidence" and say that it is insufficient to propose an answer. You'd argue I am proceeding from a religious point of view which colors my conclusion. I'd argue the same for you - an anti-religious viewpoint colors your conclusions. Fair enough? It's clear no more needs be said, but feel free to put in the last word.
> Wow. 300 posts and no proof. I already told you that we need to know more about this thing called "God" before we can say whether it exists or not. Otherwise, it is just as useful to argue about whether "Zod" exists or not.
Joseph, I'm interested in this idea of Genesis as two poems. Where do you think the first stops and the second starts? Got a link or a brief explanation for this interpretation of Genesis? thx.
Try this for starters: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm You can see that Genesis, as well as other books, have various threads of stories mixed together. For example, the creation is described twice (and they contradict each other). One is in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3. The other is in Genesis 2:4 through 2:24.
Basically, the first chapter of Genesis describes a six-day creation: on the first day, God created light. On the second day, God created Heaven by making a division between the waters which apparently engulfed the universe. On the third day, God created dry land by gathering together the waters beneath Heaven, then created the seas, grass, herbs, and fruit trees. On the fourth day, God put the sun, the moon, and the stars in Heaven, beneath the upper layer of the waters which he had divided on the second day. On the fifth day, God created sea creatures and birds. On the sixth day, God first created land creatures, and then He created man. The second chapter of Genesis states that God first created man, then created trees, then made the animals, and finally created woman. All of this happened in one day -- the same day that God created the heavens and the earth, as described in Genesis 2:4. Not only is the sequence of creation different, but the time span is different as well. Here's a few resources: http://www.geocities.com/humblegenius7/essay03.html http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/CREATIONSTORIES.html Bible scholars who are not fundamentalists are pretty much agreed that the whole OT is really interwoven from either four texts or at least four different viewpoints, the Jahwist, the Priestly, the Deuteronomist and the Elohist. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html For more on how the first two viewpoints I named relate to Genesis, go here: http://www.auburn.edu/~downejm/sp/babgen.html
Oh - you're just talking the two creation accounts. I thought you meant the entire book of Genesis being two poems stiched together. As a believer, I have rejected the literal creation story, which leaves the need to find a point where the Old Testament story becomes historical. My current belief is that Abraham is the first historical character in the Bible. thx anyway for the post
Well, there are differing versions of a few OT stories as a few of the sites I listed will make clear. Was "Abram" historical? Was "Moses" historical? We don't know. Archaeologists are beginning to find that the Hebrew settlement of Canaan probably did not happen exactly as it is depicted in the Bible, though. I can't remember which issue of Biblical Archaeology Review I saw that article in. BAR is a good read, btw, if only for the fundies writing in and cancelling their subscriptions every time BAR runs an article that says sometihng they disagree with.Those letters are comedy gold and the editor of BAR even collected them and made a book of them. [edit] Here's the "Cancel My Subscription" book: http://www.easycart.net/ecarts/bib-arch/Cancel_my_subscription.html [/edit]
And yet, the information contained on the site says nothing that isn't also found in the dusty, legitimate-looking tomes of mainstream Bible textual studies. Fancy that!
This has been very informative. My grandparents from the Netherlands just taught me that the Bible was translated into English from the Dutch original.
You know that and I know that but we have people here who can't tell poetry from history. you think they can tell sarcasm when they see it? Baby steps, Mike, baby steps. Doesn't anyone think of the children?
I think karmic receivership was discussed in Deuteronomy Chapter 11 ... or was it Chapter 13 *rimshot*
> The ad for "guaranteed love potions" on that > page really adds an aire of legitimacy to the site. And I believe we are arguing on a site that has flashing banners telling us we won a prize. The fact that internet advertising sucks does not mean the site is in question. I just like linking to there because it has short articles written in clear english.
Re: Re: Re: Prove to me God doesn't exist This is basically a simplified version of Aquinas' "Prime Mover" argument. "It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God." For a more subtle argument using logic games, check out Anselm's "Proslogion." They're both mad, of course, but fun for those interested in trying to "prove" God exists.
This website addresses the alleged contradictions. Enjoy http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html I'm sorry. By that did you mean Bible scholars who do not believe and thereby attempt to discredit the Bible?
> This website addresses the alleged contradictions This reminds me of those Star Trek sites that explain the seeming contradictions in the shows. However, you would think that something written by God would be more clear and less prone to misunderstanding.
Cute. Anything can be misinterpreted when you search so diligently for ways to misconstrue. When you read the Bible looking to discount it, you're gonna find what you're looking for, whether it makes sense or not.