Is there a god?

[LeedsRhinos]

Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.

[Merlin]

Nope, never been Catholic. Lapsed CofE at about 8. In what way have I been unreasonable? BTW Redaction: www.comparative-religion.com/articles/torah_torah_torah/ might help - I haven't checked out the whole site, so I don't necessarily subscribe to it's content. It's about repeated copying of of texts, esp. scriptures, gospels etc.

[Clanad]

First... Merlin, probably not the best choice of words re: "unreasonable". that erm applies more to others... not neccessarily of this thread. El duerino.... your excatly correct, the earth was completed in 6 days... now would you please define "day" and where and what is the source for your definition? More to come...

[el duerino]

ah - perfect! my definition of day is of course the scientific definition of a revolution around the sun. I am aware of no other. Even ancient cultures recognise the sunrise and sunset as important in dividing one time period from another. I will no doubt be amazed at your own definition which somehow validates the biblical account. no need to put more later, I will assume you have not run off defeated just yet ;)

[Merlin]

Please miss.....misssss please miss - I know another definition of 'day' - it's one rotation of the earth on it's axis. El D has now granted God 6 years for creation. That might just be enough??? Whoooooooooooops!!

[Merlin]

And I do apologise most profusely for that aberrant and abhorrent apostrophe in "it's axis". No excuse.

[Merlin]

And it wasn't until the fourth 'day' that God created the divisions between day and night and the seasons and the years. So he had however it long it took before then, the time it took to divide the night and day and seasons and years, then another two days for the livestock and man. So it says, anyway, and that's what we have to engage with. I rub my hands in gleeful anticipation of a good-natured (I hope)and, of course, reasonable tussle.

[el duerino]

haha whoops indeed. damn the no edit function of this site. too busy thinking of other things. and my awful use of apostrophes's' <----- :)

[el duerino]

although of course time is irrelevant when omnipotent. im amazed the whole thing didnt just appear.

[Clanad]

Let's see... one revolution around the sun is one day? OK... Well, there is no longer any question concerning the age of the earth, ~4.5 X 10 to the 9th years and the age of the universe is closely estimated to be ~12-16 X 10 to the 9th years. So how can Genesis Chapter 1 be reconciled with these facts? The word for day used by the writer (Moses) of the Genesis account is the Hebrew yom (where are italics when you need them). The literal translation of yom can be a standard day or a long, unspecified period of time as in "the day of the dinosaurs". The Hebrew word boger,translated "morning" also means "sunrise", "coming of light", "beginning of the day", or "dawning". There are also a number of metaphorical meanings. Our phrase "the dawning of an age" illustrates the point. Further, do all the instances of "morning and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here's an example from Psalm 90:6, also written by Moses; "In the morning it (grass)flourishes and sprouts anew: Toward evening, it fades and withers away". This refers to the life cycle of grass as compared to the short life cycle of man. Obviously more than a literal day. When looking at Genesis 1, one notices the unusual construction around the words morning and evening together with day. The combination occurs rarely, only 10 times in the Old Testament, six times in Genesis. I'll include only one of the other 4 in the sake of brevity...

[Clanad]

"And the visions of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." Daniel 8:26. This verse actually refers to events that yet to happen... 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these evenings and mornings represent thousands of days. Now this and the other examples I can provide do not have the form which is seen in the Genesis account, for example: "And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and morning, one day" Genesis 1:5. The number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than in English translations. "And there was" is not in the Hebrew, but added to make to translation flow better. The actual Hebrew says "evening and morning 'n' day". There is no way to discern from the context that the time period reffered to is a 24 hour day. Many scholars (references provided on request) agree that the Genesis 'days' are other than 12 or 24 hour time periods. Additionally, ancient Jewish scholars Josephus and Philo, early Christian authorities Justin Martyr, Iraneus,Augustine and many others acknowledged the creation days to likely be more than "natural" days. Let me close stating that yom can, and does refer to extremely long periods of time, eras if you will, elsewhere in the Scriptures. The assignment of 12 or 24 hours to this word in Genesis is disputed by early church fathers as well as many scholars today. Food for thought until next time...

[Merlin]

CLANAD An enlightening study of ancient literature, thanks, including some "Well - I never knew that!!" moments. But what is your deduction; what is your take on creation? If you say 'God created the universe', then you will have to define 'God'. Otherwise you may as well say 'Billybob' did it and if we don't know what Billybob is, there is no argument.

[el duerino]

ok clannad - as expected theists merely try and distort the meaning of key words in passages. ooh it could mean anything. so what is your take on it? did an omnipotent god really take more than 6 days to make everything? What exactly is the provenance of the christian creation myth?

[Merlin]

Where is everybody? I suspect that IR is taking time out to review the nature of the Bible and is getting something positive out of this forum. Clanad, El D and me are here but where is everyone else, especially God's supporters? Is this going to end with two figures on an otherwise empty plain (wind whistling, tumble weed rolling past); with the atheists being the last men standing? If so, I will take the usual meaning from 'Last man standing'.

[singingfish]

Andy Hughes you have single-handedly summed up exactly what I think, but have never really been able to sum up myself!! For this I thank you, and I really hope you see this xxx

[Merlin]

Andy Hughes said: "The fact that there is no proof for any higher deity is the cornerstone of faith. My personal view is that mankind takes comfort from the notion that there is a higher being looking out for him, and a better life after this one. I don't believe it myself, but I can understand why others do." Apart from the last sentence, we probably all agree with this. But why don't you believe it yourself? (I don't, as you will know, but why don't you?)

[Merlin]

Just to bang on a bit, while I wait, all AH said, in effect, was: 1. that faith was required to believe in something for which there is no proof, 2. that mankind takes comfort from ideas that would give it comfort (e.g. being looked after by a competent carer and that things will get better). These are statements of the obvious, if you think about it, and, without thinking about it even, you would tend to agree with it, wouldn't you? So to follow that with "I don't believe in God" is rather a non sequitur. Ho hum, ah me.

[Clanad]

Part 1) It appears, Merlin that there is a distinct lack of interest in this thread... however... My attempt to this point is to establish the reliability of the source material. The writings are unique in the extreme, so as to be completely different from all others. I've attempted to demonstrate but one example of its uniqueness within the limits of this forum. I've also attempted to demonstrate that the original languages of the writings deserve study and comparison to languages into which it was translated. I don't think this is "trying to distort the meaning of key words..." It is no less true simply because the facts are pointed out. In order to present evidence of Who and What God is, some sort of basis, a foundation if you will, must be laid. I'm attempting to do that. I'm also keeping in mind the caveat I spoke of in the beginning of the discourse, namely neither you nor I are going to "prove" to the other anything. Your beliefs are as much, if not more based on faith than are mine. Additionally, when all the evidence is in, believing that the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exists is certainly more of "will not" rather than "cannot". El duerino asks questions that contain there own answers... could an omnipotent god take more than 6 days to create everything. An omnipotent God could do anything he wants, BUT, the God of the Shema can only act within the constraints of His nature. That nature, for the most part, is revealed in the Scriptures. Most importantly, He doesn't have love, He IS love (1 John 4:16). A love that is beyond our comprehension. Additionally, He is infinitely just.

[Clanad]

(Part II) El duerino, may I ask, what is your deffinition for the myth of which you speak? You describe it as a Christian myth, however all of the writings by all of the various men writing the New Testament have none of the characterstics of myths. (Neither does the Old Testament.) I can provide details for their truthfullnes that would provide enough "preponderance of evidence" that even a hardened soul (such as mine once was)would be foolish not to at least give it serious consideration. Merlin, this would probably constitute another series of "Well - I never knew that moments" for you. However, the evidence must lead to a conclusion at some point. You have no reason to believe that what I tell you is true... after all we are nothing more than a series of 1's and 0's to each other when you get down to it. So no matter what I'm able to present, one must investigate it for themselves.

[Clanad]

(Part III) I entered this discourse, not with the intent or hope of "converting" anyone. However, it's been my experience, that if enough "Well - I didn't know that" moments occur, a different way of looking at scripture may at least occur. If anyone contributing to this thread has "faith" in their not being a god, they must have some basis for that... there must be some documentary evidence on which to rely. Is it as reliable as scripture. Do you subject it to word studies if written originally in a different language? I entered this discussion not as some kind of game to determine "the last man standing". All I can do is present the evidence in good faith... what anyone chooses to do with it is truly their business. I'll close with this: Elohim of the scripture is completely and utterly "Other"... as the Name itself indicates, He is more than One, yet singularly One. He is totally outside of creation, pre-existing forever, yet He chose to speak creation into existence in an instant. At that instant, time and space came into being, yet Elohim was and is able to move throughout time... past, present and future, all at the same time. He did not and does not "need" man, yet He chose to create us. He freely loves each and everyone and desires them to love Him... yet gives us absolutely free will to do that or not. He has done everything possible to reveal Himself to His created, including becoming human Himself. Yeshua HaMashiach lived and taught, performed miracles, died and was raised from the tomb, was witnessed by more than 500 people for 40 days. The writings describing this are reliable and have withstood total scrutiny for over 2,000 years.

[el duerino]

lol, I hate to say it Clannad but most of what you say is fairly standard, especially loading up on the contradictions whilst avoiding the question. WHAT IS THE PROVENANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CREATION MYTH? Also, it is an incredible misonception to believe that because we cannot disprove god, atheism is as much a leap of faith as religion. Do you believe in unicorns? There is a huge amount of evidence throughout many cultures of mystical creatures, which, amazingly, have never been disproved. Are you taking a leap of faith not believing in unicorns? So god is limited by his nature is he? And he has not done everything possible, that is an obvious lie, please do not lie in this thread. There are so many inconsistencies in what you have said but i cannot be bothered to tear them apart right now.