Do you believe in God?

[Skynyrd1977]

What evidence do you have? ...

Hey Joey. Your right, one should always be seeking for what really is true. And Christians shouldn't dog anyone. However, there is much evidence if you seek it out. Check out CARM, I think they present a lot of evidence.

For instance, did you know that Archaeology has only ever confirmed the Bible, and has never found anything to contradict it?

Also, there are over 5,000 copies of scripture, and when examined for copy errors, the Scripure is still 98.5% accurate, and the 1.5% of errors do not represent anything significant that would affect the doctrines and the message.

 

[mindwise]

the Scripure is still 98.5% accurate, and the 1.5% of errors do not represent anything significant that would affect the doctrines and the message.

Talking about scripture, are you aware of the many hundreds of 'dead sea scrolls'' ?
talking about an interesting read

Edit:
Well, i had typed an extensive piece on the supposed fulfilling of Isaiah (Jesus and virgin birth) and on the archeology supports the bible 100% (easy target) claim made, , the (lack of) evidence for Jesus, doctrinal problems (such as the trinity) and much much much much more.
- But -
It seems everyone is saved from that, for now at least...., as trying to add more quotes to the already 14 quote rebuttal piece, i picked the wrong browser window to browse and get the quotes, writing gone.... i still wonder if it would have been a 'multi-page-post' , lol.

I guess some might call it 'providence'

 

[DaddyVDUB]

I just want to put this out there and mayby someone will start thinking about it.At the time Jesus walked on Earth, Rome was the world power of that time.They flatly did not care anything about the Jewish God,or there religon.They seen Ceasar as God.When Jesus said that he was indeed The Son of God he became an enemy of the Roman empire.Flying in the face of what they believed as well as an enemy of the corrupt Jewish religous leaders.Many before Jesus claimed to be the Messiah,but none confirmed that claim with the miracles as Jesus did.The world was a different place back then but people were not that much different.Jesus having made claims as he did dont you think that after he was crusified that the Roman Empire would have silenced the claims of his followers that he had risen from the dead. If in fact he had remained dead as every other human since creation has. BUT because he did rise from the grave and take his place in Heaven some 2000 years later they still can not silence HIS followers.

 

[Joey D]

Hey Joey. Your right, one should always be seeking for what really is true. And Christians shouldn't dog anyone. However, there is much evidence if you seek it out. Check out CARM, I think they present a lot of evidence.

I would prefer non-biased material. An organisation solely dedicated to proving one thing tends to neglect contradicting evidence. I don't even know where to begin with that site, the scientific accuracies are particularly odd. They seem to stretch it quite a bit.

For instance, did you know that Archaeology has only ever confirmed the Bible, and has never found anything to contradict it?

Really? I'm an archaeologist of sorts and will graduate on Saturday with an undergraduate degree in archaeology and through all of my studies that has never come up. Yes, I agree some places in the Bible have been shown to exist in the archaeological record, but it's also in other source documents.

For the most part Biblical archaeologist are not taken all that serious in the community since there are so many problems with artefacts that exists. Frauds, hoaxes, poor excavation practices, etc. are just some of the problems. Also many Biblical archaeologist go into a site with preconceived notions and tend to skew or ignore the data to make their hypothesis fit. Although there are archaeologist that do this who are in search of other things, Heinrich Schliemann is one I can think of off the top of my head.

I would think if archaeology proved the Bible it would be a pretty important thing that I would be taught, especially by several of my very Christian professors.

Also, there are over 5,000 copies of scripture, and when examined for copy errors, the Scripure is still 98.5% accurate, and the 1.5% of errors do not represent anything significant that would affect the doctrines and the message.

Who did that study? Remember 78% of all statistics are made up.

 

[mindwise]

I just want to put this out there and mayby someone will start thinking about it.At the time Jesus walked on Earth, Rome was the world power of that time.They flatly did not care anything about the Jewish God,or there religon.They seen Ceasar as God.When Jesus said that he was indeed The Son of God he became an enemy of the Roman empire.Flying in the face of what they believed as well as an enemy of the corrupt Jewish religous leaders.Many before Jesus claimed to be the Messiah,but none confirmed that claim with the miracles as Jesus did.The world was a different place back then but people were not that much different.Jesus having made claims as he did dont you think that after he was crusified that the Roman Empire would have silenced the claims of his followers that he had risen from the dead. If in fact he had remained dead as every other human since creation has. BUT because he did rise from the grave and take his place in Heaven some 2000 years later they still can not silence HIS followers.

Well, think about this:

Apart from the romans not caring what god their many conquered people believed in, think of this:

If the Roman knew there was a man that could actually heal the blind, walk on water, cure diseases turn water into wine (that would have been their fav ) etc.

Do you actually think they would "kill" him, rather then take him to Rome to serve and help them, no, i cannot see how they would waste that opportunity just to please people they considered to be their subjects.

Romans were quite advanced in medicine and (normal) healing, they'd jump to such an opportunity.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Talking about scripture, are you aware of the many hundreds of 'dead sea scrolls'' ?
talking about an interesting read

Edit:
Well, i had typed an extensive piece on the supposed fulfilling of Isaiah (Jesus and virgin birth) and on the archeology supports the bible 100% (easy target) claim made, , the (lack of) evidence for Jesus, doctrinal problems (such as the trinity) and much much much much more.
- But -
It seems everyone is saved from that, for now at least...., as trying to add more quotes to the already 14 quote rebuttal piece, i picked the wrong browser window to browse and get the quotes, writing gone.... i still wonder if it would have been a 'multi-page-post' , lol.

I guess some might call it 'providence'

See...God smote your browser!


Joey;
I was wrong, we have over 28,000 copies of Scripture to compare. I think the CARM site does a decent job of presenting objections and attempting plausible arguments. Bias does not necessarily mean they automatically present falshoods. And, I would venture that you will only find sites that are either bias toward or bias against the Bible. I'll do some scouting around.

Manuscript Evidence

When/Who wrote what

Manuscript Copy Error

External Confirmation


​

 

[Wolfe]

For instance, did you know that Archaeology has only ever confirmed the Bible, and has never found anything to contradict it?

Edit: Yes, the study of dinosaurs is paleontology. I still refer to the act of excavating as archaeology.

 

[Danoff]

pwnd!

 

[Joey D]

Archaeologist do not dig up dinosaur bones. That's palentology.

 

[Wolfe]

Archaeologist do not dig up dinosaur bones. That's palentology.

Damn, you just tree'd my edit.

 

[Danoff]

Archaeologist do not dig up dinosaur bones. That's palentology.

Cross-disciplinary.

 

[Joey D]

Except archaeology studies human culture through material remains and palentology is the study of organisms and their evolution through time. Palentology looks back much further then archaeology does. Archaeologist are only looking at a very small blip in the history of the planet.

Really the only time they would work together is if they were looking at pre-home sapiens and that isn't really all that often. An archaeologist would never look at dinosaur bones as dinosaurs never walked the planet with humans...but I guess that disproves part of the bible as well.

 

[Touring Mars]

dinosaurs never walked the planet with humans...

A bone of contention for some people... *puts away the Richard Whiteley Punmaster 2000*

Is that Sue?

 

[Wolfe]

@Joey: A paleontologist is just as likely to argue that not all of them dig up dinosaur bones as you are to argue that archaeology has nothing to do with dinosaurs. We'll go nowhere with this.

@TM: I wouldn't know. That was the first decent photo of reasonable dimensions that I could find in a Google search.

 

[Sureboss]

For instance, did you know that Archaeology has only ever confirmed the Bible, and has never found anything to contradict it?

Yes, but Archaeology can only do so much, it's not as though they can find evidence that he walked on water (without going off on one, could be interpreted in so many ways) or that he fed thousands with a fish (see above brackets).

 

[Joey D]

@Joey: A paleontologist is just as likely to argue that not all of them dig up dinosaur bones as you are to argue that archaeology has nothing to do with dinosaurs. We'll go nowhere with this.

Yes but some palaeontologist actually do stuff with dinosaurs, an archaeologist won't ever. Sorry, it strikes a chord with me as my future career ambitions have to deal with being an archaeologist and I've put forth quite a bit of time and money to try and learn the discipline. It's a huge running joke in our department at the university about digging up dinosaur bones because of couple of us were associated with the uncovering of a Mastodon in the area. But I am hear to tell you, actually any archaeologist will tell you, we do not dig up dinosaur bone and if we happen to come across some while we are excavating we are instructed to call in a palaeontologist.

 

[Duke]

To a lay person, they both dig up really really old stuff. Agreed, with orders of magnitude of difference between the "really" bits. But still, why belabor the point?

 

[Joey D]

To a lay person, they both dig up really really old stuff. Agreed, with orders of magnitude of difference between the "really" bits. But still, why belabor the point?

It's an incorrect statement, there is a big difference and a simple Wikipedia search would have confirmed that. Honestly it's one thing to debate things with no clear cut answer like "does God exist" but when things have a set definition it can't be.

People correct each other all the time on the internet, just look at the Presidential discussion, people have been doing it all day. So why are you bringing up this point to me now when this has happened everyday since the invention of the internet?

 

[Pako]

It's an incorrect statement, there is a big difference and a simple Wikipedia search would have confirmed that. Honestly it's one thing to debate things with no clear cut answer like "does God exist" but when things have a set definition it can't be.

People correct each other all the time on the internet, just look at the Presidential discussion, people have been doing it all day. So why are you bringing up this point to me now when this has happened everyday since the invention of the internet?

Not to belittle your point, but pointing out the faults of another publicly has been going on looooooong before the internet.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

 

[Joey D]

Not to belittle your point, but pointing out the faults of another publicly has been going on looooooong before the internet.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

Oh no I understand that. I agree it's been going on since people developed thought. I guess what I was meaning to say was stuff like this current situation has been going on since the beginning of the internet, as in proving someone wrong via an electronic means.

 

[Danoff]

Oh no I understand that. I agree it's been going on since people developed thought. I guess what I was meaning to say was stuff like this current situation has been going on since the beginning of the internet, as in proving someone wrong via an electronic means.

Point is... stuff in the ground supports or contradicts the bible?

Contradicts.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Point is... stuff in the ground supports or contradicts the bible?

Contradicts.

But I don't see how it contradicts? (or at least the example given)

 

[Stevisiov]

But I don't see how it contradicts? (or at least the example given)

Try the dinosaur skeleton recovered by *ahem* palaeontologists, it directly contradicts the Genesis.

 

[Pako]

Try the dinosaur skeleton recovered by *ahem* palaeontologists, it directly contradicts the Genesis.

Really? Ok, I'll bite, how so?

 

[mindwise]

But I don't see how it contradicts? (or at least the example given)

That's what one finds when one scratches beneath the service.

For example, the oldest city known is jericho, and the walls of that city have certainly been torn down.

At face value, that is consistent with the biblical story.

However, archeology has deemed this city to be (at least) 10.000 years old, and it's walls have been torn down on multiple occasions.

10.000 yo is no longer consistent with the biblical story, and the walls coming down on multiple occasions favors a natural cause more likely whereby passing tribes, unaware of what actually took place, created mythical story's of how this may have happened.

Well, that's what i think is a lot more likely anyway

Btw Joey, i envy your excellent choice in education. Looking back i wish i had the brain to go for geology, but archeology is now in my top 5
Well done

==

Dino's contradict genesis because they went extinct +/- 65 million years ago. That's a bit too long ago for genesis. (ask Mr Ussher (the guy that first tried to work out when 'creation week' was.))

Btw, any 'last thursday-ists' present?

 

[Stevisiov]

I have to appologies if this passage is not accurate I got it from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=31

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Genesis chapter 1, the first page.

Unless I am reading into this a bit too literally, from what I can establish the very first page of the bible states that the earth and its contents were created in 6 days, I am struggling to see where the dinosaurs fit into these 6 days unless these days weren't really days at all.

Of course perhaps the bible isn't to be taken literally at all times but it does seem like 'stuff in the ground' as Dan put it contradicts the bible.

[edit] I would also like to apologies, it seems like we are re-tracing old steps in this thread.

 

[Pako]

A day to God is like a thousand years. In loose interpretations, a day to God is a really really long time for us when you're talking about our average life expectancy to be less than a hundred years.

 

[mindwise]

A day to God is like a thousand years. In loose interpretations, a day to God is a really really long time for us when you're talking about our average life expectancy to be less than a hundred years.

Yes, you could claim that until the end of day 3, since a day from then on certainly is defined by the sun.

" 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day"

the animals were 'created' after this strict definition of day. (evening/morning, day/night) so the 1000 year option does not 'help' any literal reading imo.

The only thing the 'loose' definition of day (i.e. 1000 years) would help is wrt the age of the universe.

Now anyone is free to believe the earth was 'created' before any other body in the universe, and that plants were created before the sun existed (which creates another problem for the '1 day = 1000 years' approach imo.)

But that seems slightly off to me

 

[shaka]

Yeah i do.👍

 

[Pako]

Yes, you could claim that until the end of day 3, since a day from then on certainly is defined by the sun.


the animals were 'created' after this strict definition of day. (evening/morning, day/night) so the 1000 year option does not 'help' any literal reading imo.

The only thing the 'loose' definition of day (i.e. 1000 years) would help is wrt the age of the universe.

Now anyone is free to believe the earth was 'created' before any other body in the universe, and that plants were created before the sun existed (which creates another problem for the '1 day = 1000 years' approach imo.)

But that seems slightly off to me

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

So you see, a "day" was early man's attempt at explaining a period of time. How can God, who is omnipresent, use the cycle of the sun as a calibration of what a day is? If He is truly the creator of the universe, the rotation of our planet would not constitute His day, but ours. So often I see man's limitation put on God, when He has no limitations.