God Question… - Help.com

Erm ?

Ask me one on sport , lol

God knows what the correct answer to that one would be

I don’t think there is a way to reconcile a literal interpretation to the scientific evidence.

God sometimes get things wrong . Science sometimes gets things wrong.

Who knows what the truth is

Well. I mean, people just say that the Bible is the word of a deity, but what evidence is there for that conclusion? I.E. What evidence is there to conclude there is a deity? I think the best explanation is that the Bible is merely a book written by men, who had no modern understanding of the formation of the universe. That’s why it is so in error. The common argument is that it must be interpreted metaphorically, but if you encountered one lesson by the writers of the book of Genesis that suggested that it should be interpreted literally, then that argument is entirely debunked.

Ya have put some big *** words in that sentence for a saturday night .

Chill Winston ,

Life’s too short to worry about things like that init .

I don’t believe in God for that same purpose. There’s much more beyond creationism. It’d be nice to believe in some higher power but I only go by what science can back up.

liv_192 wrote:
Get my drift?

Not really. Are you saying the Bible is factually incorrect if taken literally?

Hey, one answer to that is radiometric dating. This is true because the decay of an element cannot be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil unless both the original and final amounts of radioactive element in the sample are known.
See people have tested the radiometric dating thing. Like they will test bark I think it was, and they know how old it was and all…Well guess what? It came back saying it was million of years old! Lol.

And paper is made from bark ( I think ) and the bible is made from paper , So there had to be trees around to make the bible ?

Anonymous wrote:
Well. I mean, people just say that the Bible is the word of a deity, but what evidence is there for that conclusion? I.E. What evidence is there to conclude there is a deity? I think the best explanation is that the Bible is merely a book written by men, who had no modern understanding of the formation of the universe. That’s why it is so in error. The common argument is that it must be interpreted metaphorically, but if you encountered one lesson by the writers of the book of Genesis that suggested that it should be interpreted literally, then that argument is entirely debunked.

I would like to know what u see as error in the Bible? I am young, but I’d like to know what u think.
-Before people believed that the world was flat, had they read the Bible they would have seen that God made it round.
- They tried to get rid of this presidents blood,who was it?…cuz they though his “sickness” would go away. Well he died. And if they had read the Bible, they would have seen that life is in the blood sustains life Lev 17:11

Anonymous wrote:
And paper is made from bark ( I think ) and the bible is made from paper , So there had to be trees around to make the bible ?

Anonymous wrote:
And paper is made from bark ( I think ) and the bible is made from paper , So there had to be trees around to make the bible ?

I dont really read the bible that much .

So im not saying another word about whats right or whats wrong , Im no expert like I said .

I think if evolution really had occurred there would have been traces of the process in the fossil record. Yet after a century and a half of fossil excavation, evolutionists have failed to discover the proof they seek. When kinds of animals appear in the fossil record, they appear to be fully formed, showing no traces of having evolved from something else. In addition, the fossil record reveals a record of sudden death and destrucation that is consistend with the Biblical teaching concerning a worldwide Flood. Does Noah’s ark pop up in anyone’s mind? ;-)

I thought about building an ark when my town got flooded . So yes it did pop into my mind lol

If evolution was true - if organisms have gradually changed into other organisms over time- there would be countless fossils of transitional forms! But there are NONE, what’s up with that? Hmmmmmm

Anonymous wrote:
I thought about building an ark when my town got flooded . So yes it did pop into my mind lol

LOL! Relax, look at the rainbow, a promise for no WORLD WODE flood ever again. Floods will still occur, but no world wide flood ;-)

First of all, lots of gaps are easily explained by incomplete fossil preservation. The earth changes dynamically, sometimes violently over time. If a fossil isn’t preserved in a certain way, it will biodegrade. In addition, other mechanical forces can destroy fossil layers. For instance, maybe an organism left fossils in a layer. In the meantime, it evolved to a new species. They too left fossils in layers. However, suppose there was massive erosion by wind and/or water. That would destroy that layer. Then conditions stabilized, but by that time, the species had evolved yet again, and this time, it did leave fossils. There appears to be a gap, however, there actually is none. The record is just incomplete.

Maybe I’m closeminded, but I can’t really imagine how anyone could really not believe in evolution. But it’s a big world and I’m sure everyone I know believes things I couldn’t myself imagine.

Teaching someone something continuously over years, particularly when they are most impressionable, even when it is errant, can be nearly impossible to reverse. It’s tantamount to brain washing.

Any coherent and functional worldview seems appropriately in touch with reality, I just don’t see the coherence in some belief systems I’ve been exposed to.

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, lots of gaps are easily explained by incomplete fossil preservation. The earth changes dynamically, sometimes violently over time. If a fossil isn’t preserved in a certain way, it will biodegrade. In addition, other mechanical forces can destroy fossil layers. For instance, maybe an organism left fossils in a layer. In the meantime, it evolved to a new species. They too left fossils in layers. However, suppose there was massive erosion by wind and/or water. That would destroy that layer. Then conditions stabilized, but by that time, the species had evolved yet again, and this time, it did leave fossils. There appears to be a gap, however, there actually is none. The record is just incomplete.

But there are fossil records of like animals in an uprigh position having grass in their mouth…It seems like a catastrophe must have happended (flood).So technically there should be millions of fossils showing various stages in the gradual transition of kinds of organisms into different kinds. The fossil record does not even reveal ONE transitional form! So if evolution is true people must have BIG FAITH to believe in that…

Actually, there are plenty of transitional organisms. Vestigial organs evidence it.

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, there are plenty of transitional organisms.

That’s where it gets interesting, because to see all the transitional life-forms one has to look at what is commonly known as “the tree of life”.

For me when I see this beautiful world…If you study Biology and see how the human body works…then it’s just impossible to believe that it just happened…So poof it just came into being by itself without nobody making it?

Will does not equate with order. Plenty of ordered things happen everyday without a will behind it. To say that a materialist thinks everything came from nothing is a misrepresentation of what we think. We think there are materials and processes, but not a will. We actually have the most complete explanation, because it is everyone else that supposes that there was initially a will, but no materials or processes, in your words, “Poof out of nothing.”

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, there are plenty of transitional organisms. Vestigial organs evidence it.

Hon, are u sure those are real? I don’t think so. People like to make them up.
Just look back at this. For over 40 years, “Piltdown man” was used as “proof” that man had evolved from apes. Aparently someone had carefully filed the teeth of an orangutan’s jaw fragment to make the jaw look humanlike, treated it with chemicals to make it look “ancient,” and buried it alongside similarly treated human skull fragments in a place where they would be easily found. Scientist’s blind faith in “Piltdown man” was so firm that no one had niticed the obvious file marks on the teeth, or the fact that one tooth had been filed so far down that the pulp cavity had been artificially plugged with chewing gum. No one even became suspicious ehen an “ancient bone tool” carved in the shape of a modern English cricket bat was dug up at the site. (Cricket is a British game similar to baseball.)

You’re making the mistake of assuming that because one instance of a vestigial organ was false, all instances are. There are countless lists of recorded vestigial organs, even today. Are you going to be so stubborn and illogical as to deny that we have a small remnant of a tailbone?

Anonymous wrote:
Well. I mean, people just say that the Bible is the word of a deity, but what evidence is there for that conclusion? I.E. What evidence is there to conclude there is a deity? I think the best explanation is that the Bible is merely a book written by men, who had no modern understanding of the formation of the universe. That’s why it is so in error. The common argument is that it must be interpreted metaphorically, but if you encountered one lesson by the writers of the book of Genesis that suggested that it should be interpreted literally, then that argument is entirely debunked.

If they were men with no modern understanding of the formation of the universe they, would NOT know that the earth was round either;-) That’s cuz the author of the Bible is God:-)

How did they know the earth was round?

Anonymous wrote:
You’re making the mistake of assuming that because one instance of a vestigial organ was false, all instances are. There are countless lists of recorded vestigial organs, even today. Are you going to be so stubborn and illogical as to deny that we have a small remnant of a tailbone?

Anonymous wrote:
How did they know the earth was round?

God the maker knew…and that’s why it’s in the Bible…

Meaning, what makes you think they knew the earth was round?

Anonymous wrote:
Meaning, what makes you think they knew the earth was round?

Who?

Anyone of the authors of the Bible.

Anonymous wrote:
Anyone of the authors of the Bible.

It’s in Genesis it says that God made the earth round. I don’t know.

I’d appreciate some reference.

I don’t know the reference, but I’ve read it and can try to look for it.

Please.

Anonymous wrote:
Please.

Yes I will, will be back soon.

Ok, I found a couple now I’ll tell u them.

Isaiah 40:42 where it mentions the “circle of the earth”
Job 26:10 where it mentions that God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters and the boundary of light and darkness.
A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7 which states that God hangs the earth on nothing (The earth floats in space)

Was god around at the same time as the egyptian’s ?

They new alot about the universe and mankind .

Anonymous wrote:
Was god around at the same time as the egyptian’s ? They new alot about the universe and mankind .

He’s always been;-) Yeah, they knew too cuz of the Bible. There is very much in there…

Phew ,

I said something constructive for once lol

I don’t think the earth is billion of years old. Cuz in the Bible, from genealogies and other events recorded in the Bible, the creation happened about 6,000 years ago :-)

I wasnt really very good at history , lol as ya can proberly tell

Anonymous wrote:
Phew ,

I said something constructive for once lol[/quo

[quote Anonymous]I wasnt really very good at history , lol as ya can proberly tell

That’s allright, I am not either:-) History makes me yawn actually,lol!

Umm..can I ask u something?

All I heard was circle. The earth isn’t a circle. It is a sphere. The word sphere has Greek origins. In addition, we have verses translated that suggest flat and rectangular geometry, such as word possibly meaning four corners, a word for the ends of the earth (traversing the surface of a sphere, it has no end), a verse suggesting that an object in the sky would be seen by everyone simultaneously (something in the sky could only be seen by someone in the hemisphere facing it). Of course one can argue metaphor or mistranslation for any of it, but the same can be done to the references of the circle. The mere fact is that we have no reliable way of knowing from the modern Bible what the authors knew about the geometric shape of the earth. We merely project our modern knowledge onto the verses. I think that if we had discovered that the earth were in fact planar, the people who now reference the circle verses in the Bible to support claims that the authors knew the earth was a sphere would have no problem referencing the corner verses in the Bible to support claims that the authors knew the earth was flat.

Ask me ?

Anonymous wrote:
All I heard was circle. The earth isn’t a circle. It is a sphere. The word sphere has Greek origins. In addition, we have verses translated that suggest flat and rectangular geometry, such as word possibly meaning four corners, a word for the ends of the earth (traversing the surface of a sphere, it has no end), a verse suggesting that an object in the sky would be seen by everyone simultaneously (something in the sky could only be seen by someone in the hemisphere facing it). Of course one can argue metaphor or mistranslation for any of it, but the same can be done to the references of the circle. The mere fact is that we have no reliable way of knowing from the modern Bible what the authors knew about the geometric shape of the earth. We merely project our modern knowledge onto the verses. I think that if we had discovered that the earth were in fact planar, the people who now reference the circle verses in the Bible to support claims that the authors knew the earth was a sphere would have no problem referencing the corner verses in the Bible to support claims that the authors knew the earth was flat.

Anonymous wrote:
Ask me ?

Honestly, I don’t have the answers for everything. I am young and looking for answers in this life…But the end will reveal it all….

The world is a complex place , The universe is a never ending mystery .

We know more about space than we do about the oceans ,

The answer’s we might seek could be hidden in the depths of ocean , Its one place that mankind hasn’t found a way to explore fully just yet.

Anonymous wrote:
The world is a complex place , The universe is a never ending mystery.

Also our brains are pretty small. It’s nice that there are things with thousands of years of accumulated knowledge, like religion and science, but it’s individual people with tiny brains and minds who have to make some sense of the truth of it all.

It’s the question of what was first, the chicken or the egg.

Hmmmm ?

Anonymous wrote:
It’s the question of what was first, the chicken or the egg.

the egg.

Who laid the egg ?

Anonymous wrote:
Who laid the egg ?

The easter bunny?

Rabbit’s don’t lay eggs .

Then it must have been a chickenodactyl.

:-)

There is a wonderful commentary on this at ron wyatt.com. ( See his newsletters)

At the time of the flood there was a massive deluge, and this deluge was all over the Earth. Think of you pouring running water into a bottle, and then capping the bottle and shaking the bottle around… that is what is may have been like, with the tides and all this water would have shifted the Earth around on it’s axis… studies show approxamately ten times,( The studies for this are shown in the rocks!) Science will never admit that they are wrong, but will readily admit that they are right when they simply only offer us best guesses or inferences.

Anyway, The rocks do not lie, and infact show us that the Earth is as old as it should be, and it is relatively young. For further reading ( SO I don’t mix this up… please see the wonderful commentaries of the Earth’s flood on Ron Wyatt’s website.)

That’s funnier than a chickenodactyl.

srnityblu wrote:
There is a wonderful commentary on this at ron wyatt.com. ( See his newsletters)

At the time of the flood there was a massive deluge, and this deluge was all over the Earth. Think of you pouring running water into a bottle, and then capping the bottle and shaking the bottle around… that is what is may have been like, with the tides and all this water would have shifted the Earth around on it’s axis… studies show approxamately ten times,( The studies for this are shown in the rocks!) Science will never admit that they are wrong, but will readily admit that they are right when they simply only offer us best guesses or inferences.

Anyway, The rocks do not lie, and infact show us that the Earth is as old as it should be, and it is relatively young. For further reading ( SO I don’t mix this up… please see the wonderful commentaries of the Earth’s flood on Ron Wyatt’s website.)

Hey,can I add u as my friend?

Like the film water world ?

systemofadown1fa wrote:
short simple answer its not pretty but there is no god

Psalm 14:1
“The fool hath said in his heart,there is no God…”

Yes there is a God ;-) You might not believe it now, but one day you will cuz all of creation will bow down to Him…..In the end you will see this.
Like in this life- we are given choises…we choose what we want. Jesus doesn’t want to force himself upon anyone. (One example is in a relationship…I would not want to force any guy to love me,I want him to CHOOSE to love me). Jesus is the same way, he don’t want to force us to believe in Him. You might know many Christians who will do everything to persuade u to believe. But really, that’s just cuz because they want the BEST for you…
There are two paths to walk the Bible talks about one is wide (hell) and the other one is small (heaven)…

When we die God will ask us why we didn’t believe in him…You can explain all you want…but there is no second chance. You made your choise on earth to not believe in him. And worst of all, there were many people telling you about Him,but u didn’t listen…Hell is eternal…I can’t even stand burning my finger for a second under the tap water…but my whole body in hell? No! I’d rather just confess that there is a God and that I am a sinner.
God is a holy God, he hates sin…that’s why he sent Jesus to “pay” for our sins so we don’t need to go to hell. All we have to do is believe this, that Jesus died for our sins, so we can to to heaven when we die.
We don’t go to heaven by being good and doing good things to “earn our way to heaven.” No, it was finished on the cross. GOD DID IT ALL, we do NOTHING. We don’t go scrape our knees on the ground and torture ourself to go to heaven. It’s too easy, JUST BELIEVE. That’s it. Then you can have a wonderful relationship with God…and He is a real person!

I have been an immoral girl commiting nasty sins and drunk…But I realized I was a sinner, and just accepted to believe…Life is different now. So much better than I could ever immagine!

Religious pseudo-threats don’t work on apostates. I used to spout the same drivel, but I got over it. It just isn’t true.

US Citizen w/Rights wrote:
Religious pseudo-threats don’t work on apostates.

The threats, the poor logic, the refusal to consider each other’s points of view — these all seem unhelpful to me, no matter which “team” anyone thinks they’re fighting for. I know I’m different, but that’s how I feel.