Post Any Evidence For God Here

[chang50]

But who are you to say when the point of no return might have been reached?As Woody has noted you like to speak for God on a regular basis.My point is I have zero chance of something that even a Hitler has a slim chance of ONLY because I have a different OPINION on the nature of reality,as long as I have the integrity to not alter it in the face of inducements and threats,preferring to look to the evidence.That is immoral and repugnant catering to the very worst in human nature.

I am not the one who determines when the point of no return is or where the line is drawn. I am simply pointing out that there is a line and when we cross it it is on a conscious level because it is we who choose to walk further and further away from God until we no longer even see God even when all the evidence is right before us in a thread such as this one. We refuse to really examine the evidence and not really look into it because of Pride or just plain lust for power and control or what ever of the millions of things that men do lust after.

The whole point of a Final Judgement in fact is to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt and in front of the entire universe that it is we who chose to walk away from God with every choice that we made in our lives. God will either be proven just or a tyrant then and all the universe will know this or they will come to know that all human nature is just plain evil and that is why they chose to go away from God. Well except those who actually manage to accept the truth and confess and repent of their evil sins and human nature.

Not really addressing my point.As things stand I have zero chance of entering heaven,at best no better than a Hitler,possibly slightly worse.Yet he is responsible for millions of deaths and my crime is holding an opinion.What moral person could describe that as just?

And just exactly what do you base those chances on exactly?

I have fully addressed this issue and it is not about chance but about choice!

Look into the matter and read your Bible or buy one or borrow one from the Library before you start talking about Chances Are??? It makes for a great song title but not the plain and simple truth. The truth is that we either choose to look into this and read up on this or we choose not to. The problem is choice and not chance.

Ok what are the mathematical odds,since you dislike chance,of someone who chooses not to accept Jesus as their saviour(me) entering heaven?I've yet to talk to a Christian who rates them higher than zero.Btw I'm fine with that,don't want it at all,honestly.What you seem incapable of understanding is that any scheme that claims to be moral on the one hand yet punishes evil mass murderers the same as honest dissenters on the other,is the opposite of moral.
Maybe you'll be the first to tell me I can enter the Kingdom without this requirement...

[Viceroy63]

It is sad to see that you are still missing the point here, corporal.

No, I've definitely grasped your point...well, that is...if your point is that you believe you're morally superior to everyone else. That seems to be the sum total of your production here.

So were you ever going to answer the question that was asked regarding how it is "just" for someone like Hitler to ask for forgiveness just before he commits suicide and is accepted into heaven, but an atheist who is a very good person but just doesn't believe in God is sent to hell. I understand the whole "you can't enter heaven on works alone", yet...where is the justice in that? That's not just, and it's certainly not merciful.

OK; Here it is again. The full and detailed answer to your question. Perhaps this time you will care to read it? If you ask me again I will post it again for clarity until you do read it. OK. =)

I read it. In fact, I ANSWERED IT DIRECTLY. Fascinatingly enough, YOU HAVE IGNORED that answer. Why is that, Viceroy? You are guilty of that which you attempt to accuse me. Why don't you go back to those answers I had and respond to them for a change? Give that a try. Geez, the dishonesty of folks like you really gives your religion a bad name.

Where you see the word "Judgement" or "Final Judgement" or "Before God," you may interchange these words with "Death Bed" or "Final Moments of Life." - End Note/Addendum.

So what you're telling me is that the Bible has the wrong words? I thought the Bible was infallable? Or are you just speaking for God's mind again?

If you really think that a demon possessed personality that can war on humanity can repent of his sins then you have truly missed the point.

There is no evidence that Hitler was possessed by a demon.

If on a very simply level of good and evil and morality, if on the simplest of levels a person wont turn to God then neither will they turn to God when in the final judgment, after a lifetime of denying God.

That doesn't even make basic sense. An atheist MIGHT turn to God when in the final judgement, as he finally recognizes that there is actually a God (having the proof before him in her presence). Being an atheist doesn't mean you hate God...it means you don't believe she exists. Once proof is provided, then views should change.

In the final judgment, no personalities such as a Hitler will be there to repent or make their choice because they have already made it.

Again, this is not what the Bible says.

People such as they will go directly to the third resurrection of the dead which is the resurrection of condemnation. Not the second resurrection. In that second resurrection will be those who are genuinely deceived and Ignorant of the truth. They will make their choice then.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along, or are you being fed this by someone else?

But I say again, if a person has too much pride in their hearts to accept the truth in the here and now, then how much more hard a time will they have in the judgment when all is revealed

"When all is revealed", then it would obviously be a MUCH EASIER TIME to make that call. Perfect information has a funny way of doing that.

and we all learn to be humble because we all will learn that in this life, we really were shit balls. All of us. And I am not trying to insult anyone but it is the truth whether you accept it or not.

Except that it really isn't the truth. You should stop hating yourself so much. Learn to love yourself. You're not that bad. Compared to Hitler, anyway.

Do you think that Hitler was not once a child and did he not have a past just like any other child. Evil is in the heart of all humanity. History has shown us that if it were not Hitler then it would have been some one else. Perhaps you or I if given the same set of circumstances.

I do not accept that assertion, no.

It is never all of a sudden but in stages. One of those stages would be to accept that Humans evolved out of stones and mud rather than to accept the simple truth that God created us.

That God created us out of...stones and mud? Huh.

Common sense just went out the window with the baby and the bath water, Voila!

I agree with you, but not in the way you might think.

And just like that we took a stand against God.

I haven't "taken a stand against God". I grew up in a religious household, and I loved my church. I still keep in contact with my pastor from back then, in fact...he is a man I greatly respect. And I hold respect for most religious people, as I do think most are genuinely good people. I am not anti-religion. But it doesn't make sense for me to "take a stand against" something that I don't believe exists. That's like me taking a stand against leprechauns...it would be a complete waste of time and energy. I DO, however, take a stand against irrationality, lies and abuse.

And then perhaps another stage may be to receive money to do something like for example lie on your taxes. And just like that you've made another choice and another stand against God. And little by little it goes building up until a sweet little child becomes a World dominating leader and murderer of millions.

That's a hell of a ladder you got going there. Lying on your taxes leads to world domination.

Maybe one day some one will put a gun to your head and ask you to decide, "I kill you, or the person next to you; You decide?" Most Probably you would say, "Kill him please, I have a wife and children," and just like that you've made another choice against God.

That's not a choice against God. If that's a choice against God, then God is an idiot.

And little by little perhaps you find yourself in a position where you can rule the world but you may have to kill some Jews to do it as part of the deal? Maybe even kill 11 million innocent none combatant civilians, but what would it matter so long as you ruled the world? How do you repent from something like that if you can't even stop cheating on your taxes to save a couple of hundred dollars? The answer; You don't.

You should stop hating yourself. I can see how it has led you to who you are, though.

Do you think that some one who tells me that I am stupid for believing in a God really cares about his neighbor?

I don't at all think the two are mutually exclusive, no. I think it's entirely possible for someone to think you're stupid for believing in God and yet still care deeply about his fellow man. The two are not at all congruent.

Yet it is this very mentality that feeds the Hitler in all of us which makes up humanity.

You really should stop hating yourself.

If humanity were not evil then why do we prepare for war (If not us then some other humans will)?

You believe that being prepared to defend yourself against an attacker is evil?

Is this not all a result of human sins because we are evil?

Not in my opinion, no.

All of humanity is basically evil and in need of redemption.

You should find a good psychologist. You have a serious problem.

Save that soul who thinks he is basically a good person with some minor faults because never did he have a chance to rule the world even if it meant being by nature, a murdering godless human.

Seriously...get help.

Just because you don't believe in God is not what makes one worthy of the death penalty. But because human nature is basically evil and deserves the death penalty is what drives us away from God and towards theories like those of "Evolution."

Before you harm yourself or your family more than you already have.

I would like to add that Paul was killing Christians, not out of hate but because he sincerely believed that he was doing the will of God. When Jesus presented Himself to Saul, the truth was made evident and Saul repented of his sin. He would spend the next 3 years learning the truth of God's way which was not the killing of other Christian or believers of any faith. In fact not killing at all; So any religion that kills others in the name of Allah or what ever god, is not of the true religion of the one true God.

Since all religions have done this, then you agree with me that there is no God?

The point that I was trying to make is that the further away that you get from God, the more evil you are likely to become.

That explains the Spanish Inquisition, I suppose?

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
-Proverbs 22:6

I was raised in a religious household with a very strong church and a pastor that I respected a great deal. However, I eventually started to look at the world with a critical eye and realized that the existence of a God was very unlikely. So how do you explain that?

The point being that there is a point of no return. A line that once crossed, there is no coming back from.

There you go...speaking for God's mind again. You really need to break that nasty habit. Or at the very least, stop telling others that they can't possibly know what God's intentions are.

Since nature tells us that even an old Dog is set on his ways, Or "You just can't teach an old dog new tricks" it should be obvious that after you have matured into adulthood, That's it. The person that you have transformed into is the person that you will go into the great final judgement as. Demon possessed or not, that also was a choice by you.

I am living proof that this is not the case. In fact, my marriage is living proof that this is not the case. You're failing badly here.

Now When that actually happens is an individual situation. Just like it could be possible for there to exist a 40 year old virgin??? It is also possible that one may not fully mature until well into their adult years. There is even a psychological term known as, "Arrested Development" that lends to this theory of late bloomers. But rest assured that when one finally does fully develop, it is by his own choice. And still another example of this is the fact that life begins at 40 for some because that is the age when some fully mature for the rest of their lives.

I have never heard anyone, never mind a religious person, abuse so many cliches in an effort at propoganda.

But again the point is that if you are not moving towards God then you are moving away from Him. There is no middle ground. Just as Adam and Eve moved away from God when they ate of the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil. You see the sin was not really that they ate a fruit, but rather that they "Chose" to eat that fruit when they were specifically told not to. They chose to decide for themselves what is good and what is evil instead of relying on God to tell them.

So you approve of slavery and you disapprove of freedom of thought and action?

In summation, all that I can say is that the question is seeded with a false assumption that a personality like Hitler could ask for forgiveness and also that People are generally or basically good and deserving.

It's amazing that you're so willing to speak for God's mind. Your arrogance is overwhelming.

This long explanation deals with this question if you will only bother to take the time to really read this answer.

Will you take the time to read and respond to my previous answer and this one?

My Answer...

You would think that what you are doing when you dissect a comment is answering the topic but you would be wrong. What you are doing can be liken to taking a car apart and examining the individual pieces and saying, "I can do better than this, nope, no good, unacceptable, throw back... etc. etc." And as you do your "one liner's" with the pieces, the car itself becomes junk and wont run any longer because you only took it apart rather than to explain away how something works or doesn't work, because you fail to understand how it works in the first place. For example where you write...

Do you think that Hitler was not once a child and did he not have a past just like any other child. Evil is in the heart of all humanity. History has shown us that if it were not Hitler then it would have been some one else. Perhaps you or I if given the same set of circumstances.



I do not accept that assertion, no.

...What exactly is it that you don't accept? That Hitler was once a child? What happened there then, Did he just drop out of a coconut tree in 1936? He was also in WWI as a young Teen fighting for Austria if I am not mistaken.

Your failure to properly respond to the thesis is what is wrong here and then you honestly expect an answer on hundred's of driblets, combinations of alphabets? If I did that to you, it would also not be acceptable. That you are unable to actually form an opinion on the matter and construct a dialog gives you no right to attack others when they choose not to answer your dribble. The fact is that if you had truly read my answer the first time you would not have wrote...

It is sad to see that you are still missing the point here, corporal.



No, I've definitely grasped your point...well, that is...if your point is that you believe you're morally superior to everyone else. That seems to be the sum total of your production here.

So were you ever going to answer the question that was asked regarding how it is "just" for someone like Hitler to ask for forgiveness just before he commits suicide and is accepted into heaven, but an atheist who is a very good person but just doesn't believe in God is sent to hell. I understand the whole "you can't enter heaven on works alone", yet...where is the justice in that? That's not just, and it's certainly not merciful.

[Note]
As mention previously (in another comment), this question is loaded or seeded with assumptions that have yet to be discussed or taken seriously. -End Note.

To judge me as morally superior when I am also a human just like you makes no sense in view of what I am saying about humanity. Or don't you get that. If you had truly read what I wrote then you would have made that connection. To claim that I had not answered your question only drives the nail home that you in fact did not read my comment the first time.

So then you dissect it as if that shows that you read it because now you bring up a thousand little points of mindless dribble that if I were to actually answer would lend credence to your nonsensical "one line" statements. I choose not to answer your dribble until you actually take the time to read and to form a response. If I can go through the time and effort then so can you. Otherwise, as the old saying goes, "Put up or shut up!"

The evidence for God is real and examinable but you prefer to attack basic teachings by reducing them down to their simpler components and dismissing them at that level. Why can't you do the same with the evidence that supports the existence of God? There is probably a military term for that type of assault and that is what you are doing. Rather than having a conversation, you are on the offensive and then when one choose not to fight at your level you continue to accuse them of other things which are also false. That seems like bait and switch to me.

You start out by asking me why Evolution can't be the way that God created life and I answered it and somehow you manipulated and digressed this attempt at communication to this level of simplicity because you can't handle a fully functional thesis that I wrote to explain in detail the minor points of my answer. I seriously doubt that you can even write up a thesis to prove your point and that is why you resort to these "one liners."

As proof I offer you back your own "one liner" about development being in stages and ask you to write a thesis on just this one bit. You said...

And then perhaps another stage may be to receive money to do something like for example lie on your taxes. And just like that you've made another choice and another stand against God. And little by little it goes building up until a sweet little child becomes a World dominating leader and murderer of millions.



That's a hell of a ladder you got going there. Lying on your taxes leads to world domination.

...Now write to me an explanation for why you believe that it is a simple matter to go from just your average "Joe" to a mad man in just a moment without some kind of a ladder such as the one described, to help you on your way. Or to put it another way, how does one go from not hurting a fly, to murder? especially when statistics show that cruel behavior is developed in the child rearing years. Much like Smoking or alcoholism or beating up on your wife and children. People don't just grow up hitting a woman unless they have gotten used to kicking their dogs first.

Write up a thesis to explain that simple decision to explain away a ladder as a requirement to explain how any child could grow up, develop and become a mass murderer with out having learned that and practice those choices, somewhere along the way?

Not to mention the fact that you completely ignored the main gist of what I wrote. Your "one liner" is more like a distraction as in a military maneuver that get's our attention from the main topic. Your very masterful at that. Perhaps if you deployed strategy such as this in your games your rank would improve? Corporal! Just a thought.

[tzor]

The question is what is the 1st verse in the Bible that you take literally. I'm not saying every verse after that you are taking literally, I'm simply and for the 5th time, asking what is the 1st verse in the Bible you take literally...

The question is stupid and a waste of time. I would have to go through the entire Bible starting with Genesis until I found the first literal one and I don't have the time.

Clearly, by my criteria Exodus 3:6 is literal, given the fact that it was heard by Moses and spoken by God directly.

What then about Genesis 50:26? I mean I can't think of why it would be anything otherwise. It is a little odd given that it seems more in line with Egyptian custom than with Jewish custom but otherwise I can't see why he wasn't embalmed and buried in Egypt.

[tzor]

Ok what are the mathematical odds,since you dislike chance,of someone who chooses not to accept Jesus as their saviour(me) entering heaven?

Neither chance nor odds can ever be determined when free will is involved.

[Viceroy63]

The first literal verse in the Bible that I see is the very first one because it has nothing to do with the rest of the creation account. Genesis 1:1 is merely a statement of the facts that "In the beginning, [it was] God [who] created the heavens and the earth."

[tzor]

The first literal verse in the Bible that I see is the very first one because it has nothing to do with the rest of the creation account. Genesis 1:1 is merely a statement of the facts that "In the beginning, [it was] God [who] created the heavens and the earth."

Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

The Nature of בראשׁית in Gen 1.1

In a nutshell, the interpretation and translation of the first complex word, בְּרֵאשִׁית, in the Masoretic text of the Leningrad Codex as an absolute temporal prepositional phrase, “in the beginning, …” is grammatically indefensible. Period. End of story.

If one wants to ignore the Masoretic vocalization and read the word with an articular vowel with the preposition, i.e., *בָּרֵאשִׁית, “in THE beginning,” as the Samaritan Pentateuch appears to do, fine. But one must not only recognize that such a choice is a departure from the Masoretic text, but also fails to explain the Greek Ἐν ἀρχῇ, which also lack the definite article.

What is the grammatically justified analysis? The noun ראשׁית is bound to an unmarked relative clause, “beginning-of (that/when) God created …”. This construction, which is found in Ge’ez, Old South Arabian, and Akkadian, must be as old as Semitic itself. In other words, the noun-bound-to-clause structure of ראשׁית ברא in Gen 1.1. finds a clear parallel in the Akkadian pattern di:n idi:nu “judgment (that) he judged/rendered” (Lipinski 2001:533-34; also see Deutscher 2001, 2002 for insightful linguistic discussion of origins of the Old Akkadian relative clause).

Here I should also mention the excellent study, Baasten 2007. Baasten covers much the same ground as I do in my 2008 VT article and it is unfortunate that our library did not receive the book until well after my article came out. I recommend reading Baasten’s study alongside mine.

The biggest difference between Baasten’s study, as well as all previous studies of the noun-bound-to-clause construction in Semitic, and my argument (in my thesis and in the 2008 VT article) concerns the semantics of this unmarked relative clause. I argue that using a bound form of the noun serving as the head of the relative clause is one strategy used to mark the relative clause as restrictive. The other strategy used to mark a Hebrew relative as restrictive is to omit the relative word, i.e., an unmarked or asyndetic relative clause. Interestingly, both strategies are used in בראשׁית ברא! That is, Gen 1.1 is doubly-marked as a restrictive relative clause, meaning that this particular ראשׁית cannot be identified without the information given within the relative. It is the particular ראשׁית during which God created the heavens and the earth. It is not an absolute ראשׁית, “THE beginning”, but just one specific ראשׁית that is being referenced in Gen 1.1.

[Lootifer]

I'd be happy too. First off my info was ridiculed for being false without thorough research. And the rest of my info, I see was accepted. A better approach from someone who wants truth, is to just plainly ask, "Please provide evidence".
Here is your evidence:

Magazine: Chemical & Engineering News, November 21, 1983. Page 42. "Chemist at Argonne National Laboratory have succeeded in making a type of artificial coal from naturally occurring materials. The process is much less severe than formerly thought to be necessary and provides some new insights into coal structure and how to alter it..."
Magazine: Nature, March 28, 1985. Page 316. "Winans and his colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory have taken less than one year to prepare a thoroughly characterized synthetic coal. The material they produce is indistinguishable from the real thing by all the techniques so far applied to it and its synthesis raises many interesting questions in coal chemistry.

How does this work? Wood is made up of Lignin (a binding agent) and Cellulose fibers.
Lignin + Clay + Heat (150* Celcius) + time (8 months) - O2 (vacuum) = 100% coal. Indistinguishable from other coal by all techniques.
Reference: Hayatsu et al. Organic Geochemistry, Volume 6, pp 463-471, 1984

This is all discussed in a youtube video between the following time slots:
From the 4:30 mark to the 20:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12jUKnPbHI

So now you have proof positive of what I said is true. And your claim of what I said as being false is wrong. What you do with this will reveal how dedicated you are to your faith in your belief in 4.6 billion year old earth to add validity to Evolution.

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

Ok...

Not once did I say in my post that you cannot make synthetic coal. That is coal that is physically* no different to normal coal dug up out of the ground.

What I did say is that when tested that synthetic coal will no doubt return a radiometric age of the original source material (in this case lignin).

The two articles you linked do not cover if they radiometrically tested the samples [in the publically available material] (I doubt they did as they were researching synthetic fuals, not how old the earth is), and I am not willing to pay for the articles myself.

Again; do you have evidence that they radiometrically tested the synthetic coal samples, and if so, that they returned an age of 20 million years?

fyi:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cen-v061n047.p042
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 316a0.html

edit:
Ooooh but one article lists its references; nothing on radio or carbon dating

[universalchiro]

The Nature of בראשׁית in Gen 1.1

In a nutshell, the interpretation and translation of the first complex word, בְּרֵאשִׁית, in the Masoretic text of the Leningrad Codex as an absolute temporal prepositional phrase, “in the beginning, …” is grammatically indefensible. Period. End of story.

If one wants to ignore the Masoretic vocalization and read the word with an articular vowel with the preposition, i.e., *בָּרֵאשִׁית, “in THE beginning,” as the Samaritan Pentateuch appears to do, fine. But one must not only recognize that such a choice is a departure from the Masoretic text, but also fails to explain the Greek Ἐν ἀρχῇ, which also lack the definite article.

What is the grammatically justified analysis? The noun ראשׁית is bound to an unmarked relative clause, “beginning-of (that/when) God created …”. This construction, which is found in Ge’ez, Old South Arabian, and Akkadian, must be as old as Semitic itself. In other words, the noun-bound-to-clause structure of ראשׁית ברא in Gen 1.1. finds a clear parallel in the Akkadian pattern di:n idi:nu “judgment (that) he judged/rendered” (Lipinski 2001:533-34; also see Deutscher 2001, 2002 for insightful linguistic discussion of origins of the Old Akkadian relative clause).

Here I should also mention the excellent study, Baasten 2007. Baasten covers much the same ground as I do in my 2008 VT article and it is unfortunate that our library did not receive the book until well after my article came out. I recommend reading Baasten’s study alongside mine.

The biggest difference between Baasten’s study, as well as all previous studies of the noun-bound-to-clause construction in Semitic, and my argument (in my thesis and in the 2008 VT article) concerns the semantics of this unmarked relative clause. I argue that using a bound form of the noun serving as the head of the relative clause is one strategy used to mark the relative clause as restrictive. The other strategy used to mark a Hebrew relative as restrictive is to omit the relative word, i.e., an unmarked or asyndetic relative clause. Interestingly, both strategies are used in בראשׁית ברא! That is, Gen 1.1 is doubly-marked as a restrictive relative clause, meaning that this particular ראשׁית cannot be identified without the information given within the relative. It is the particular ראשׁית during which God created the heavens and the earth. It is not an absolute ראשׁית, “THE beginning”, but just one specific ראשׁית that is being referenced in Gen 1.1.

Anyone can copy and paste.
http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.c ... anslation/

If you read the entire article, you would see he was a student writing a thesis paper 2002. And he is arguing the obvious. Because he is making a big deal over a definitive article not being there versus being there. The "In THE beginning" is not the beginning of God, but THE beginning of all things in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible that God creates. So this article is a mute point.

[jonesthecurl]

Someone just sent me an interesting comment from I think a similar thread elsewhere...

If you can hate the sin without hating the sinner, then I can hate the belief without hating the believer

[universalchiro]

The question is what is the 1st verse in the Bible that you take literally. I'm not saying every verse after that you are taking literally, I'm simply and for the 5th time, asking what is the 1st verse in the Bible you take literally...

The question is stupid and a waste of time. I would have to go through the entire Bible starting with Genesis until I found the first literal one and I don't have the time.

Clearly, by my criteria Exodus 3:6 is literal, given the fact that it was heard by Moses and spoken by God directly.

I know it's a stupid question for you. I knew you thought thus before I asked.

I'm glad to hear you think Exodus 3:6 is literal. And even more glad to read that the basis for taking it literally is the fact that Moses heard what God spoke directly.

Then by your own criteria, Exodus 31 would have some literal parts: Starting with verse 12 " The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. 14 Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. 16 So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to [o]celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’ 17 It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

18 When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.

So there you have God literally speaking directly to Moses that He created heaven and earth in six days and resting the 7th day.
Always, (whenever someone says "Always", it should be a red flag), always in the Bible when a number is in front of the word "day", it refers to literal rotation of the earth. When there is no number in front of "Day", it could mean eons, epics, ages, an unknown length of time.

Since the example above of Exodus 31 was God speaking to Moses, if you try to wiggle out of that, then try this on for size:
You took Exodus 3:6 literally because God spoke to Moses. Well God spoke to Moses also in Exodus 20:The Ten Commandments

20 Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. 7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you. 13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery. 15 “You shall not steal. 16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”


This was to be taken so literally that God etched His words in stone with His own finger.
Not once : Exodus 24:12 "Now the Lord said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction.
But twice!: Exodus 34:1 Now the Lord said to Moses, “Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered"

Not only did Moses believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, but so too did/does God. For Genesis is God's own testimony of Himself, penned by Moses.

So you have 2 methods of God directly telling Moses, one verbal and one written and God repeated both methods twice. Four times God is making Himself as clear as day (pun intended).

The fundamental problem of using man-made psuedo-science to interpret the Bible, is then the Bible is forced to fit man's ways. Instead of using the Bible as the standard and seeing if man's ways measure up to the Bible. You are using man as the measuring stick for God's word, instead of using God's word as the measuring stick for man's ways.

[chang50]

Ok what are the mathematical odds,since you dislike chance,of someone who chooses not to accept Jesus as their saviour(me) entering heaven?

Neither chance nor odds can ever be determined when free will is involved.

I'm struggling to understand this,is it possible to enter the kingom of heaven without sincerely accepting Jesus as one's lord and saviour,or not?

[universalchiro]

Someone just sent me an interesting comment from I think a similar thread elsewhere...

If you can hate the sin without hating the sinner, then I can hate the belief without hating the believer

On a superficial level this seems acceptable. For Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters." Luke 11:23. And "against" as in military term as in warring against.

But with deeper studies, since all believers are representatives of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20 "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.), by default hating the belief is hating the believer. "

The acts of hating believers will follow soon enough, the New testament has promised believers that persecution is coming in the end times. Not just verbal/written as on this thread, but physically.

That's why Christianity is the most foolish thing to ever believe in. What, this all powerful God came so dang poor that He was born in a feeding trough and this glorious King was too poor to stay in an Inn, that He was born in a barn? Yes. Also, this great and all powerful, glorious God was beaten to a pulp, beard torn out, spat upon, mocked, had a crown of thorns and was nailed to a cross surrounded by common criminals? yes. It seems too foolish to believe such a thing. Especially since denying the desires of the flesh is the way and promised persecution is coming our way! But God had to do it this way. Why?

We are made in His image with the same attributes. What worth is it to have someone tell you you love them after you have forced them to do so? None. Us guys, we know that if we were super wealthy, and pulled up next to a girl in a Ferrari and showed off massive wealth, we would never know that she loves us for who we are, not what we can give her. And God is the same way. He gave us free will to chose, so when we do chose Him, it's worthy and enjoyable love to Him. And when we do believe in Him, it's based on faith alone, not by seeing the wealthy arrival.

But again, this is why the Bible is so foolishness to mankind. Because God came so humbly as a lamb to the slaughter. For us.

[oVo]

I'm struggling to understand this,is it possible to enter the kingom of heaven without sincerely accepting Jesus as one's lord and savior,or not?

It's nothing to struggle with at all. A loving and forgiving God will not turn anyone away.
Unless the Catholics are correct in their beliefs, in which case everyone who is not a Catholic is going to Hell. Personally I find Catholics to be untrustworthy hypocrites simply because they condemn homosexuals, premarital sex and birth control, but can't manage their own pedophile clergy.

Proof of God? Every breath you take.

[waauw]

I'm struggling to understand this,is it possible to enter the kingom of heaven without sincerely accepting Jesus as one's lord and savior,or not?

It's nothing to struggle with at all. A loving and forgiving God will not turn anyone away.
Unless the Catholics are correct in their beliefs, in which case everyone who is not a Catholic is going to Hell. Personally I find Catholics to be untrustworthy hypocrites simply because they condemn homosexuals, premarital sex and birth control, but can't manage their own pedophile clergy.

Proof of God? Every breath you take.

breathing isn't proof at all.

[crispybits]

Maybe he means the song by The Police (ably fronted by Sting - no not the wrestler...)

[jonesthecurl]

Paul Newman was good in that, but I thought the tune was by Scott Joplin.

[crispybits]

Dunno - everything is a cover of a cover of a cover, not even "holy" books are original, everyone is plagiarising left right and centre...

[tzor]

If you read the entire article, you would see he was a student writing a thesis paper 2002. And he is arguing the obvious. Because he is making a big deal over a definitive article not being there versus being there. The "In THE beginning" is not the beginning of God, but THE beginning of all things in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible that God creates. So this article is a mute point.

The point I was trying to make (using both the footnotes from the Catholic Bible and his argument) was that in the first part of the story is that there is a statement and an action and the part of "God created" i a part of the statement, not the action. The action is His proclaiming "let there be light."

So we are looking at "Beginning of God's creating heavens and earth." It's sort of like "At the start of my workday." There is no "action" here. The whole chapter implies that God did the creating, but the statement in and of itself is not a literal action as was claimed by the previous poster. So I cannot treat it as "literal" any more than I can I can treat "At the start of my workday" as literal.

[tzor]

8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Yes, there are some things that are literal, some things that are symbolic and some things that literally reference the symbolic. God says because of the symbolism of the six days of creation and the following "day of rest" that they too should follow that model. That is significantly different from a divine confirmation that the world was created in 144 hours.

But, as they say, it gets complicated. In chapter 19 we see everyone approach the mountain. Here is the description in 19:16-19

On the morning of the third day there were peals of thunder and lightning, and a heavy cloud over the mountain, and a very loud blast of the shofar, so that all the people in the camp trembled. But Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God, and they stationed themselves at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was completely enveloped in smoke, because the LORD had come down upon it in fire. The smoke rose from it as though from a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled violently. The blast of the shofar grew louder and louder, while Moses was speaking and God was answering him with thunder.

So, to the people, God's voice was thunder. So let's start off with chapter 20. Where is Moses? Well the end of 19 had him down with the people. "Then God spoke all these words." (To whom?) The actual words to Moses doesn't happen until verse 22 and ironically Moses doesn't write anything down until chapter 24. Now we have to consider "editorial discretion" from the Priestly sources of the Torah. Since Moses first wrote down the words from verse 22 on after the end of the day, and since the first words from God were heard as "thunder" it would have been assumed that the words were the direct explanation of the commandments that would be written on stone a few days later.

Note also that in the section spoken directly to Moses, (Exodus 23:12) no mention of the six days of creation is made and it comes right after a command about a seventh year of rest after six years of sowing the land. There are also references to groups of three, which fits in with the symbolic division of the six days as two groups of three.

This is a really good example of when you have to carefully study the text and the whole context of the text in order to determine what is literal and what is symbolic, as well as how that text got into the text in the first place.

[Viceroy63]

Ok what are the mathematical odds,since you dislike chance,of someone who chooses not to accept Jesus as their saviour(me) entering heaven?

Neither chance nor odds can ever be determined when free will is involved.

I'm struggling to understand this,is it possible to enter the kingom of heaven without sincerely accepting Jesus as one's lord and saviour,or not?

One can not enter the "Kingdom of God" (Where ever it is) if not through Jesus. But you can not accept something that you do not understand.

Most people who do not accept a thing simply don't understand the thing to begin with. Even if they say that they understand, they just don't.

for example; Any one who claims that they do not need to be saved from death does not understand death. Some may say things like, "It is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven" assigning the same assumption of life to both places. As if hell were also a literal place? They would be wrong on both counts.

[waauw]

Ok what are the mathematical odds,since you dislike chance,of someone who chooses not to accept Jesus as their saviour(me) entering heaven?

Neither chance nor odds can ever be determined when free will is involved.

I'm struggling to understand this,is it possible to enter the kingom of heaven without sincerely accepting Jesus as one's lord and saviour,or not?

One can not enter the "Kingdom of God" (Where ever it is) if not through Jesus. But you can not accept something that you do not understand.

Most people who do not accept a thing simply don't understand the thing to begin with. Even if they say that they understand, they just don't.

for example; Any one who claims that they do not need to be saved from death does not understand death. Some may say things like, "It is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven" assigning the same assumption of life to both places. As if hell were also a literal place? They would be wrong on both counts.

That's bullshit. That's like saying, that one cannot accept the existance of the laws of physics because he/she doesn't have a full understanding of physics. You're mixing up the terms 'knowing' and 'believing', but both are about accepting certain information.

[tzor]

That's bullshit. That's like saying, that one cannot accept the existance of the laws of physics because he/she doesn't have a full understanding of physics. You're mixing up the terms 'knowing' and 'believing', but both are about accepting certain information.

No, that is bullshit. It is more like saying, "we cannot understand the laws of physics inside a black hole singularity because we have never been in a black hole singularity and we cannot directly observe one (we can only observe the event horizon)." The original argument is a non assumption based on non observation argument, not with the completeness of knowledge argument. Please get them straight.

[chang50]

[chang50]

Ok what are the mathematical odds,since you dislike chance,of someone who chooses not to accept Jesus as their saviour(me) entering heaven?

Neither chance nor odds can ever be determined when free will is involved.

I'm struggling to understand this,is it possible to enter the kingom of heaven without sincerely accepting Jesus as one's lord and saviour,or not?

One can not enter the "Kingdom of God" (Where ever it is) if not through Jesus. But you can not accept something that you do not understand.

Most people who do not accept a thing simply don't understand the thing to begin with. Even if they say that they understand, they just don't.

for example; Any one who claims that they do not need to be saved from death does not understand death. Some may say things like, "It is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven" assigning the same assumption of life to both places. As if hell were also a literal place? They would be wrong on both counts.

So for the sake of argument let's say I don't understand what I am not accepting.Does this failing on my behalf,wilful or not,deserve at least as harsh treatment in your god's eyes as a Hitler?If the answer is yes,this is surely not moral..

[oVo]

I'm struggling to understand this,is it possible to enter the kingom of heaven without sincerely accepting Jesus as one's lord and savior,or not?

It's nothing to struggle with at all. A loving and forgiving God will not turn anyone away.
Unless the Catholics are correct in their beliefs, in which case everyone who is not a Catholic is going to Hell. Personally I find Catholics to be untrustworthy hypocrites simply because they condemn homosexuals, premarital sex and birth control, but can't manage their own pedophile clergy.

Proof of God? Every breath you take.

breathing isn't proof at all.

Sure it is, God is the breath within the breath. Of course to grasp this idea
you must also understand the nature of faith itself, a belief in the unseen.

If you can hate the sin without hating the sinner, then I can hate the belief without hating the believer.

This is a good concept, if some religions could just let go of the prejudices
they've maintained for centuries it might just work.