Dan56

That was my point, a single solitary point of view. What can be seen and heard is all there is. Judging everything from only what can be physically observed. The material world is all that can be known. It doesn't mean a one dimensional mind isn't intelligent, but that its inflexible and isn't open to anything but the obvious. Whereby, God cannot exist on a different plane because there is no spiritual realm. There can be nothing that science can't explain, stable anti-matter does not exist in our universe, a parallel universe is science fiction, etc. A two dimensional mind has more imagination and considers unproven possibilities, its open to creative thinking, of which one dimensional thinking cannot accept. A single minded person doesn't wonder about anything.. If it can't be perceived, if it can't be understood, if it can't be proven, then it can't be known, and what can't be known cannot possibly exist. But there's more to life, a belief is the hope of something more, something that's not physically perceivable. Maybe its an emotional aspiration that's missing in the singular black & white mindset, which seems void of purpose or curiosity, and prevents a person from considering anything new or beyond what they can comprehend. If someone gave you something for nothing, I doubt you could understand the logic behind it. That's because there is no logic behind it, it wouldn't make sense because you couldn't perceive of it. That's what Christ did, and that's what speaks to people more than physical evidence, its an emotional demonstration of divine love, and it doesn't exist in our physical universe. Sorry if all this crap sound preachy Many moons aloft, a semi-wise man posted this non-biblical parable which illustrates my point: A wise woman who was traveling in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream. The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, and the wise woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left rejoicing in his good fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime. But, a few days later, he came back to return the stone to the wise woman. I’ve been thinking, he said. I know how valuable this stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me this stone. – Unknown

All true... It would be like arguing over a Rules of the Road Drivers License Manual. Nothing to argue about because its accepted as factual and true. So when I accept the bible as 100% true, any argument against it is automatically deemed false. But consider that those who oppose everything it says, are as closed-minded as I am. None of us no anything to be certain, but we're all absolutely positive that we're right. I'm not appalled by anyone, just semi-fascinated by the one dimensional close-mindedness of those who are so opposed to something that they automatically reject an absolute fact, just because it comes from a book they despise. That's why none of you could even acknowledge that Jews occupy Israel today. Your too proud to admit that the 4000 year old promise to Abraham was realized. Talk about a stiff & rigid mindset.. I've always been consistent and move in a very straight but narrow line. I don't think your avoiding snakes anymore more than Eve avoided the Serpent.

So you actually do agree that the bible is true about the rightful descendants of Abraham occupying Israel today? That's progress, congratulations. Sorry if I misinterpreted your response, I guess I'm just use to an automatic denial of anything biblical. In that other thread, I wrote that I'd "continue with any bible discussions".. Topics like Genesis and Exodus are bible discussions. I also wrote that I'd "also try to avoid disrupting Atheistic and Agnostic threads, since I have no shared interest in those topics".. And I have. I also misinterpreted the new Atheistic response of integrity? I assumed the waving emoji was Jonathan agreeing with me. I guess I'm no better at interpreting emoji's as you guys are at interpreting the bible. What can I say, you've got my number, nothing trumps faith.

No attack, just a point of fact. The descendants of Abraham through Isaac occupy the promise land. You deny it, so your either in denial or your not being honest. If the bible said the grass is green and you denied it, your either not being honest or your color-blind. Forget the bible for a second, are you even aware that there are Jews in Israel today? Quite a coincidence eh? Don't be too sensitive, I'm just making a valid point.. As always, I'm being honest.

As the verses stated, the firstborn get twice the inheritance, and Ismael got twice the land mass. So it was written, so it was done. Christians are under the new covenant, not Mosaic rules. We got something far more valuable than land, our inheritance is eternal life, the Kingdom of God. The covenant didn't pass through Ishmael, just his inheritance. The covenant was with & through Isaac. The bible said so long before the map. The map just reflects what the bible set forth. Amazing isn't it? God gave the promised land to Abraham and thousands of years later his descendants occupy it. Another prophecy/promise that stands as solid evidence that God's word is true. But of course, Atheist deny that it could have ever of been possible. There is none so blind as he who will not see. God wrote it before it was history, and before anyone inherited anything. Since the Jews occupy the promised land (Israel) and the Arabs occupy more than twice the land surrounded Israel, there's nothing mythological about it. I get the feeling that if God had foretold that native Americans would be conquered and their land occupied be foreigners, you guys would write it off as a fluke too. Because a map shows it as the USA now, would just mean to you that it was made up by people who wanted the land. Good Golly Miss Molly, ya'll make up an excuse for everything to uphold your biased belief, even in the face of concrete evidence. Hard to fathom, its either stubbornness or you just can't read the writing on the wall?

If you look at a map , God did give the land of Ammon, Edom, and Moab as a heritage to the Ishmaelites . This was twice the land mass as an inheritance (Jordan) that Issac got from inheriting the promised land (Israel). "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21: 15-17)

https://youtu.be/oQd-fdpq9mk

Evidence Galore

First half is informative... Evidence of the split rock (Numbers 20:11) Split Rock at Horeb

I never got that impression or even a hint that Murray was antisemitic or a white supremacist. There are some untrue attacks on the internet about him, but they are baseless opinions from partial statements made by Murray that were taken way out of context. The only thing I've seen is that he once suggested that in Genesis 2 we find THE ADAM (in the singular) created. The Hebrew word, "aw-dawm" (rendered "Adam" in English) is from a root word meaning "to show blood in the face" or "of a ruddy complexion". So by insinuating that Adam may have been lightly complected, he was called a racist. The real objection was that the status quo disagreed with many of his teachings, so they launched attacks to discredit his character. Christians can be nasty.

No problem, I'll admit that creation could have been done in literal days, thousand year days, or eons. My opinion isn't usually in line with mainstream Christianity. Here's a video that explains it better than I can, if you have time to listen to it. I studied with Pastor Arnold Murray for several years before he passed away, and most of my comments are based on his teachings.

I personally believe that the creation story was 6 literal days, simply because the Hebrew seems to explicitly describe it as so. "And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:13). Such verses seem to indicate a 24 hour period by describing the rotation of the earth for each day. So imo, the day-night cycle equates to a literal day; "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5) But many Christians believe that one day equals a thousand year period. "In the day you eat of the fruit of this tree you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17). Figuratively speaking, Adam, and all his offspring before the flood, died within a day (1000 yr). Other scripture support one day year; "I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezekiel 4:6). And a prophetic day as described in Daniel 9:24-27 is equivalent to one year. The Day of the Lord also last a millennium. But most refer to this verse; "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).

Thank you gentlemen, I'm still polite enough to respond to comments about what I write, but I'm relieved there were no more questions, just complete agreement on my last post . Wisdom finally prevailed!! The trick is; When you don't critique what I write, you don't need to read my stupid responses.. Just had to reply to your friendly waves, now its time to take a couple chill pills 💊💊

1. I guess your reference to my belief as "nice fallacies" and "religious fanatics" just seems like heckling? 2. I don't share that sentiment, most Atheist describe the bible as a collection of fictional fairy tales, and that to me suggest they have no belief in any of it. 3. For the 10th time, imo Atheist disbelieve and are open to nothing. And Agnostics lack belief in anything that can't be proven to their satisfaction, so in reality, they are open to zip. But hey, nothings new... True, in the moment, doubting Thomas lacked belief.. He had difficulty believing things that didn't match-up with his perception of reality. Belief is not following our perceptions of what's true, but rather what we know to be true by faith. As Paul wrote; "We walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Faith is not based on miracles, but learning to trust what you've come to understand and trust. This is the preferred way God wants inquisitive minds to turn and accept the Truth.

That's a 10-4....... My desire wasn't to change minds, but to just explain why I believe as I do, but then in the face of ridicule and accusations, I inevitably end up defending why I believe as I do. But your correct, there's no resolution with people who are on opposite sides of the spectrum, people either believe or they don't.. Believe it or not, there are debates that go on forever on Christian discussion boards that make this forum seem tame. That said, I will continue with any bible discussions, but will desist in responding to hecklers who don't have any belief or genuine interest in biblical topics. I'll also try to avoid disrupting Atheistic and Agnostic threads, since I have no shared interest in those topics. As you indicated, its a futile and endless endeavor to engage in arguments with members who have made-up their minds and who's positions are unshakable, that includes myself of course.

I'm aware that you can't comprehend how God could create things in 6 days, and that you struggle to comprehend something that's beyond your own cognitive reasoning. Its evident that you just surface read Genesis and have no depth of understanding. I also know that you "don't know and don't care", but most people don't share that philosophy in life, they don't want to be ignorant and aren't content to remain that way. I noticed you were incapable of answering my simple question, so you diverted back to biblical attacks instead, which was the response I expected. God is not perceived by those who demand He prove himself, but reveals Himself to those who humbly and diligently seek Him (Matthew 7:7-8). Just to answer a couple of your observations, on day one "God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Genesis 1:3). So that pretty much blows a hole in your theory that God was working in the dark or that trees had no light to grow for a whole day. The light in verse 3 emanated directly from the presence of God, his Shekhinah glory. The same type of light alluded to in these verses; "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." (Revelation 21:23) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 22:5) "God is Light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5) The flood, Tower of Babel, and the exodus seem pretty self-explanatory. Just one genealogy of Christ, Matthew gives Joseph's ancestry and Luke gives us Mary's lineage. Jesus had thousands of followers, it was his popularity that caused the Jewish hierarchy to implore Pilate to execute Christ, they would risk rebellion in their own ranks if they had stoned him themselves. The dead that were raised was a fulfilled prophecy (Ezekiel 37:12). Matthew mentions that they appeared to people, not as zombies, but were further evidence and demonstration of the resurrective power of Christ. I doubt many 'historians' were on the streets of Jerusalem to witness or record the event, and they wouldn't know the resurrected people from Adam even if they were. All of your emoji's seem a tad juvenile, but also expected.

There are different types of evidence. The only difference is that if you were a juror and listened to a half dozen witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter) all testifying to the same thing, you would not be satisfied, because you can't believe anything you don't see. The truth is self-evident too, it just takes a bit more than a calculator to absorb it.. Independent reasoning doesn't answer everything, and its no guarantee that your correct. Let me ask you a simple question that independent reasoning should easily answer; You look out your window and see a tree, so the fact is, tree's exist, no evidence necessary in what's clearly visible. But where did the tree come from (originate)? The bible answers that simple question, but hows your independent reasoning holding up?

Well then, I guess we are finally in agreement on something Not the same, Jesus didn't have a hammer .. Although, he will return with a rod of iron in his right hand, but I fear that's not a demonstration of power you'll enjoy. He already manifested himself in flesh & blood, and he demonstrated divine power. Your demand for an individual repeat performance is ridiculous, he was crucified once for everyone and that's enough. Thank you, God knows I try I guess I still don't grasp the subtle difference between disbelief and the absence of belief, probably because the bible pretty much categorizes them as the same thing. If you lack or don't have belief, then you disbelieve, there's no middle ground, you either believe or you don't. Rejecting the bible as evidence is like rejecting 2+2=4 from an arithmetic book. Demanding tangible proof makes belief immaterial & irrelevant, so saying I'll believe when its proven is an oxymoron. Why would I back down from what I wrote? Could there be a remote chance that I was wrong? Nah If the truth can't be demonstrated, Jesus demonstrated the truth, he was the truth if the truth has no supporting evidence, many witnesses, recorded testimonies, prophesies, etc and if the truth is unverifiable, how about starting with an empty grave for verification then rejecting its solidity is logical.

I don't know? These guys just can't seem to grasp it .. Disbelief is the refusal to accept that something is true, while the lack or absence of belief is doubting its true, but that's debatable. For me, Zeus does not exist and never did, so belief has nothing to do with it. But even so, its not illogical to believe something isn't real just because you can't prove its not. If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical. Because you can't possibly know, you must have reservations about your choice. Your reservations are rooted in the fact that your open-minded enough to reconsider your choice if sufficient evidence is presented to alter what you think and change your mind, as you stipulated "I am prepared to reevaluate". In other words, its logical to presume that a nonbeliever who saw Christ returning with all the power of heaven, might have reservations about their previous notion of believing that God does not exist. 'Reservations' may have been the wrong term, but I reckon you get the gist of what I'm saying.

I certainly understand the difference in a person who says, "I don't believe God exist" and a person who states, "God does not exist". But I just think the difference is negligible. One doesn't believe God is real and the other has determined God is not real. Just seems like an insignificant distinction since neither thinks God is real. I suppose you could say that the Atheist who claims "God does not exist" is a liar, since they have no evidence to support a definitive claim like that. And without proof, every Atheist must have some reservations about what they don't believe. But regardless, whether an Atheist thinks there's evidence that proves God is unreal or an Atheist doesn't believe God is real because there's no proof of Him, they are both in the same camp by not accepting the existence of God. Its like saying "I don't think the car will start" or "The car won't start", both statements demonstrate a lack of faith or no faith in the car starting. Then there's that rare anomaly, a person like myself who believes in God and also claims that God exist, so its possible for someone to be convinced that what they believe is true (fact & proof). But simply stated, Atheist & Agnostics don't believe, while Theist & Polytheist do.

My simple point was that not all Atheist have the exact same point of view (not unlike Christians). While most Atheist don't belief there's evidence to support the existence of God, I do have a friend who bluntly claims that "God does not exist". She has formulated a point blank conclusion, evidence be damned. So it matters little to me whether its not being able to believe, a lack of evidence, hatred towards the idea of God, or any other reason. The bottom line is that Atheism is the disbelief or acceptance that any God/gods exist. The specific reasons are all semantics when they draw the same conclusion. People belief in God for different reasons and others reject God for a variety of different reasons.

I don't see much of an error, except for the distinction that Atheist don't believe because of a lack of evidence. But I've known some A's who do claim there is no God. I'm quick to adjust my view when its been shown to be based in error, but in regards to my belief and the bible, that just hasn't happened yet

Sorry I missed your point.. I just don't believe forgers successfully contaminated or altered the canonized books, nor do I believe unauthenticated works polluted the authorized canon. There are denominations that have altered things (Jehovah's Witnesses) and others have added books (Seventh-day Adventist & Latter-day Saints), but I'm convinced the original and inspired true Word was preserved. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith" (1 Timothy 6:20&21). Still don't get the question, but I don't believe that the bible is a collection of convenient books that were selected because they coincided with other popular books. The books of the preserved canon gel because the same Spirit inspired them. As you mentioned though, other religions lay claim to the same thing & people find truth in their own sacred books. Glad your getting plenty of work, try some Red Bull Nothing changed in God's character, its been the exact same God in the past, in the present, and in the future (Hebrews 13:8). The same God who forgives today also forgave in the OT. The only difference is that a Savior came to deliver us from the curse of the law. But we still have the same commandments, and Christ was not the opposite of justice, judgement has just been suspended until his second coming when his wrath will be dispensed (Revelation 19:11-16). What has often changed is the Atheist pov; https://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/apologetics/5-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god/

It makes sense for movie sequels to stick with the original story line i.e; you can't have Superman being from Krypton in one film and from Xenu in another. I'm not familiar with all the Scientologist books, but I thought the same person (L. Ron Hubbard) wrote all of the Dianetics books? Most of the books omitted from the NT canon were written +200 years after the fact, and none of the authors could be authenticated (unknown). The OT does follow the Hebrew/Israelites people, so in that sense the story line is historically compatible between authors. But your correct, faith is the evidence, and of course its based on what is considered an infallible book, the written Word is the substance of what we've understood and accepted to be the inspired and divine truth. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). Consider the fact that the bible is comprised of 66 books written over a period of 1,500 years by 40 authors. Written in 3 languages & on 3 continents, and yet it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme. The historical, structural, prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual congruency mesh together in complete harmony with no deviations from the fundamental message & truth. This to me lends much more credibility to divine authorship than any new pop-up religion. But no doubt, faith is key in understanding and accepting the bible.