A proof of God's self-evidence

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The Old Testament begins with contradictory accounts of creation.

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

In the New Testament, Luke and Mathew give contradictory geneaologies of Jesus.



First, you mischaracterize the book. The Old Testament is a compilation of different oral traditions. This is especially apparent in the portrayal of God - at one time a God who sits and has a meal with his followers, at other times a vicious God of War. Some scholars speculate the early Jewish god is a mix of two distinct deities - the calm God of the Jews already in Palestine, and the God of War Moses brings north from Egypt. The New Testament is also a compilation - the selections were politically motivated. Hence the inclusion of the Gospel of John and the exclusion of the Gospel Thomas.

As for taking the book literally: If we take the text literally, who decides which parts are figurative and which are not? Some argue that the creation story in Genesis is literally true and is not figurative.



How can this be? What constitutes 'Scripture' in organize Christianity has been almost exclusively a political decision. The books were written by different authors at different times for different people.

Viewing the Bible as one unified book is as flawed as viewing a newspaper as one unified article.



Then what happens when you publish two opposing works in the same volume? Consider the Epistle of James as compared to Paul's work.

I don't see the contradiction in Genesis, and the "contradictory" accounts of Jesus' genealogy is simple to resolve: one was his genealogy through Mary, the other was through Joseph. If you can't see this...

The Gospel of Thomas was a Gnostic forgery.

And you have to take the Genesis account on faith...just like you have to take the Big Bang on faith.

And these are simply different aspects of God...I can be both kind and jealous.

They were canonized b/c the early Church Fathers saw that they were inspired, not the other way around, and most certainly not for political reasons.

Keep this going; it's fun!

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by OntheWindowStand

The post where he describes his beliefs about the Bible

He's either an atheist or believes in an impersonal god.

[Zetetic11235]

He is showing that while genisis 1.25-1:26 states beast came before men, and indeed implys that god named cattle
genisis 2:18-2:19 shows that man came before the beasts and named them himself.If taken literally of course. Another intersting point is that days are mentioned before a sun, thats the typical independent design loophole for the world being older than 5,000 years!

If you can't see the contradiction in that then ....
we can have a party!

I believe that the general consensus of theological scholars is that the texts in the bible were traceable back to the first century, the apocrypha was not and niether were any of the scrolls found in the dead sea or other wise including the gosepl of judas and thomas. Protoman, you don't seem to see that by saying that the priests in charge 'found the books to be inspired' you admit that the superficial authority chose the books and offer no counter argument to the assertion that it was political, only that you take faith in the words of a superficial authority. You take the words of men in faith, why? Do you find that some men are not flawed and never corrupt? If so your nievete is your vice. You get to trust those in authority and in return gain false sense of comfort.

I might also add that it is silly to consider any rational argument to be a 'challenge' to your faith. No one wants to challenge your faith, only perhapse your actions or arguments. Faith and reason do not intertwine such that one can dispell another.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

He is showing that while genisis 1.25-1:26 states beast came before men, and indeed implys that god named cattle
genisis 2:18-2:19 shows that man came before the beasts and named them himself.If taken literally of course. Another intersting point is that days are mentioned before a sun, thats the typical independent design loophole for the world being older than 5,000 years!

If you can't see the contradiction in that then ....
we can have a party!

Does the non-existence of the Sun imply no light? An analogy could be that the non-existence of a fire implies that heat doesn't exist -I'm sure there's a better one--. And God created the cattle, the kind. But Adam named the individuals, like "ox", "yak", "cow", etc.

[Didymos Thomas]

I don't see the contradiction in Genesis, and the "contradictory" accounts of Jesus' genealogy is simple to resolve: one was his genealogy through Mary, the other was through Joseph. If you can't see this...

Genesis - in the first account God creates 'every thing that creepeth' and then he creates man. In the second account, God creates man and then the other creatures. So, which one is it? Did man come first, or the other creatures?

The second part of the Genesis contradiction I show here (there are others) has the clean beasts going by sevens and then claims the clean beasts go by twos like all of the others. Either they went by sevens or by twos.

Regarding geneology - in order for that solution to work you have to make the assumption - the scripture does not say one is through Mary and the other through Joseph.

The Gospel of Thomas was a Gnostic forgery.

What on earth do you mean a forgery? The Gospel of Thomas was written around the year 50, making it earlier than all the other Gospels save Mark.

Honestly - how was the book a forgery? You can no more say Thomas is a forgery than I can say John is a forgery - both were written by men.

And you have to take the Genesis account on faith...just like you have to take the Big Bang on faith.

No you do not. Regarding the Big Bang, there is science, not faith. Regarding Genesis the most obvious solution is to not make the modern Christian mistake of taking the story literally.

And these are simply different aspects of God...I can be both kind and jealous.

Except that one is El and the other Yahweh. Two different dieties combined into one long ago.

They were canonized b/c the early Church Fathers saw that they were inspired, not the other way around, and most certainly not for political reasons.

Is this, too, a matter of faith?

Believe what you want, but I suggest looking up the history before articles of faith override better judgment.

[Zetetic11235]

The non existence of sun implys the non existence of a year. I suppose considering a day as the period of rotation of the earth implys that a day was a day, however, the term is nonetheless undefined when there is no earth and god indeed did make the physical body of earth, and did so, according to genisis, before light.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
"
Earth and the 'heavens' were made before a day could have been defined as they were made before light...thus the age of the earth is left undefined by genesis.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Genesis - in the first account God creates 'every thing that creepeth' and then he creates man. In the second account, God creates man and then the other creatures. So, which one is it? Did man come first, or the other creatures?

The second part of the Genesis contradiction I show here (there are others) has the clean beasts going by sevens and then claims the clean beasts go by twos like all of the others. Either they went by sevens or by twos.

Regarding geneology - in order for that solution to work you have to make the assumption - the scripture does not say one is through Mary and the other through Joseph.



What on earth do you mean a forgery? The Gospel of Thomas was written around the year 50, making it earlier than all the other Gospels save Mark.

Honestly - how was the book a forgery? You can no more say Thomas is a forgery than I can say John is a forgery - both were written by men.



No you do not. Regarding the Big Bang, there is science, not faith. Regarding Genesis the most obvious solution is to not make the modern Christian mistake of taking the story literally.



Except that one is El and the other Yahweh. Two different dieties combined into one long ago.



Is this, too, a matter of faith?

Believe what you want, but I suggest looking up the history before articles of faith override better judgment.

Um, you do understand God has more than one title; YHWH is His name, EL is His title.
On the Big Bang: you do understand that essentially "nothing exploded", which smells of a Parmenidean theory of "nothing is something"; nothing is no-thing; it can definitely not explode.

The thing about the animals going two-by-two, some seven-by-seven...those were clean --two-by-two-- and unclean --seven-by-seven--. So there.

I retract my earlier statement about the GoT; still, it's just a collection of sayings...all of the other Gospels were the accounts of Jesus' life, and were harmonious accounts; not identical --as then people would accuse of collusion--, as each has it's own style. That raises a red flag right there. Please go read Strobels "A Case for Faith" and Strobel's "A Case for Christ", and come back to me.

Doesn't the assumption about the geneaology make sense? I don't see why that's a problem.

[Didymos Thomas]

Um, you do understand God has more than one title; YHWH is His name, EL is His title.

I'm familiar. What you've missed is the origin of those names. The early Jews who worshiped El were polytheists who gradually came to the conclusion that the worship of deities should be limited to El, husband of Asherah.

On the Big Bang: you do understand that essentially "nothing exploded", which smells of a Parmenidean theory of "nothing is something"; nothing is no-thing; it can definitely not explode.

As I understand the theory, scientists do not suggest that "nothing exploded". Instead, it was a singularity (infinitely small, infinitely dense and therefore not nothing) that began to expand (not "explode").

The thing about the animals going two-by-two, some seven-by-seven...those were clean --two-by-two-- and unclean --seven-by-seven--. So there.

You've got this mixed up. In one line the clean go by sevens, another line of the texts says the clean go by twos. Contradiction.

I retract my earlier statement about the GoT; still, it's just a collection of sayings...all of the other Gospels were the accounts of Jesus' life, and were harmonious accounts; not identical --as then people would accuse of collusion--, as each has it's own style. That raises a red flag right there. Please go read Strobels "A Case for Faith" and Strobel's "A Case for Christ", and come back to me.

It is a collection of sayings - so what? With respect to the four gospels of the Bible, they are not entirely harmonious - scholars have discussed the drastic differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John.

As for Strobel - I can't imagine why I should read the ramblings of such an extreme Christian fundamentalist. He maintains that the Bible is absolutely true - not only that the Bible is free from all errors and contradictions regarding faith and practice, but also free from historical inaccuracies as well. Of course, the Bible, if we take the compilation as a unified whole (which is a mistake in the first place), is full of contradiction and is most certainly not absolutely accurate on matters of historical record.

Honestly, he's a megachurch pastor - he is a religious profiteer. Jesus overturned the tables in the temple, and men like Strobel make fortunes by reintroducing those tables and more.

Doesn't the assumption about the geneaology make sense? I don't see why that's a problem.

The solution is invented. Lacks scriptural basis. It's invented out of thin air to defend the notion that the Bible should be taken literally.

The suggestion that the Bible is literally true would have been a shock to the authors of those texts.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I'm familiar. What you've missed is the origin of those names. The early Jews who worshiped El were polytheists who gradually came to the conclusion that the worship of deities should be limited to El, husband of Asherah.



As I understand the theory, scientists do not suggest that "nothing exploded". Instead, it was a singularity (infinitely small, infinitely dense and therefore not nothing) that began to expand (not "explode").



You've got this mixed up. In one line the clean go by sevens, another line of the texts says the clean go by twos. Contradiction.



It is a collection of sayings - so what? With respect to the four gospels of the Bible, they are not entirely harmonious - scholars have discussed the drastic differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John.

As for Strobel - I can't imagine why I should read the ramblings of such an extreme Christian fundamentalist. He maintains that the Bible is absolutely true - not only that the Bible is free from all errors and contradictions regarding faith and practice, but also free from historical inaccuracies as well. Of course, the Bible, if we take the compilation as a unified whole (which is a mistake in the first place), is full of contradiction and is most certainly not absolutely accurate on matters of historical record.

Honestly, he's a megachurch pastor - he is a religious profiteer. Jesus overturned the tables in the temple, and men like Strobel make fortunes by reintroducing those tables and more.



The solution is invented. Lacks scriptural basis. It's invented out of thin air to defend the notion that the Bible should be taken literally.

The suggestion that the Bible is literally true would have been a shock to the authors of those texts.

Can you prove that the authors did not mean for the Bible to be taken literally? Why is it so specific then? How come archaeologists keep finding evidence that supports the Bible? You can explain away anything by saying it was made up to solve a contradiction.

How do you know that about the authors? Did they say that to you personally?

I believe because I so desperately want to believe, you disbelieve because you so desperately want to disbelieve.

Ok, since from that singularity space-time came about, how did that singularity start? Everything in the universe has to have a beginning, so, if there was no space-time before the singularity started expand...how did it expand? My interpretation may be wrong, so explain this again for me

[Zetetic11235]

It is not necessarily true that space time was nonexistent at the time of the big bang, nor is it necessarily true that there is only one universe as the universe is bound in a similar way that a sphere is in hyperbolic geometry, that is, as we get closer to the edge, space time currves more and we are reduced in size. Furthermore, space expanded in excess of the speed of light at the begining of the measureable universe as the universe is conclusivly size wise in excess of the number of light years across at any direction than its number of years in age i.e. it is too big to have expanded at the speed of light. Some theoretical physicists and cosmologists speculate that there was some manner of warping similar to a bubble expaning as atmospheric pressure decreases. Of course this conjecture is pretty out there and not reasonably confirmable yet such that it holds little merit.

Do not speak of which you do not understand. Im surprised you could even use a part of wittgenstein's tractatus and completely misunderstand it and then turn around and make statements such as the whole of the book must stand or fall as one.