Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 24, 2009 ... I don't know if you will understand this...but I'm going to send it to you anyway.. The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning. It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause. The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called eternity. God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book. Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum. God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific). Now, with this..all you have to do is accept it as truth..or not accept it. Either way..it's still truth, regardless of whether you believe it or not. Not accepting something doesn't make it true. I don't accept evolution because it is not true. Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 26, 2009 ... IF you don't read this, don't expect anymore returns. The mythology of Christians does not make sense because the God is supposed to be perfect but contradicts himself in his own book which is supposed to be the word of God. God says he is unchanging, but changes the rules his followers are to follow. He commands everyone to not kill, but tells them to kill several times, and not just ones to defend themselves from, their companions as well... and well everyone some times. He doesn't contradict himself, I explained all that to you. You think he does because you fail to understand his nature. He not once contradicts himself. He is unchanging, No he didn't change the rules, where does the change the rules? Tells them to kill in WAR. To defend their nation. When Israel attacked their enemies..they were defending their right to exist. THINK. DavinCreed Mar 26, 2009 ... Re: IF you don't read this, don't expect anymore returns. "He doesn't contradict himself, I explained all that to you. You think he does because you fail to understand his nature. He not once contradicts himself. He is unchanging, No he didn't change the rules, where does the change the rules? Tells them to kill in WAR. To defend their nation. When Israel attacked their enemies..they were defending their right to exist. THINK." I am sure all the babies in Sodom and Gomorrah were evil sinners too. Despite that Jesus said children are innocent. He changes the rules from "don't kill" to "kill." Killing is war, is still killing, which God clearly says do not do, but often just as clearly, tells people to kill. He changes the rules from the laws of Moses to the ten commandments then to Jesus'. DavinCreed Mar 26, 2009 ... Re: IF you don't read this, don't expect anymore returns. "He doesn't contradict himself, I explained all that to you. You think he does because you fail to understand his nature. He not once contradicts himself. He is unchanging, No he didn't change the rules, where does the change the rules? Tells them to kill in WAR. To defend their nation. When Israel attacked their enemies..they were defending their right to exist. THINK." I am sure all the babies in Sodom and Gomorrah were evil sinners too. Despite that Jesus said children are innocent. He changes the rules from "don't kill" to "kill." Killing is war, is still killing, which God clearly says do not do, but often just as clearly, tells people to kill. He changes the rules from the laws of Moses to the ten commandments then to Jesus'. Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 26, 2009 ... I'm debating 4 people at once on here..and theres not enough room to say what we need to say. "So the laws of a prophet are not the laws of the God he is supposed to be following?" Moses wrote those laws based on the tolerance for sin. Their moral standard was much higher than ours is today. And he was right for doing so, it was their way, and he believed it to be God's way, because at that time God did not tolerate sin. He still doesn't but now you wont without hope. They didn't have cable. lol "Why would God change the laws?" God changed the laws to allow those who were not his chosen nation to be allowed to come to him. The penalty for sin was death. So when Christ came down, he gave specific instructions, believe in me..and follow the laws of my father. He bore our sins..and paid the penalty for us. Now..is that not loving? Or is God still mean? "Kill" is a different word than "Murder."Murder is a way of killing yes, but not the only way to kill. Kill just means to end a life, which God is very clearly against, otherwise God would have worded it differently." Kill: 1. To commit murder. 2. To inflict cause of death. It's the same. Now, did you know the word Kill is used in tennis? Or how about Hokey? Well, I'm sure God isn't telling us not to play tennis or Hokey now is he? Yes He is against killing, but are you telling me since he is against killing that he is not smart enough to allow his people to defend themselves? See it's how you look at it..Since he allowed his people, the Israelites to defend their lands therefor kill in war..then he's a murderous God..according to you..but then if he didn't allow his people who he loved to defend themselves..then you people wold have said.."Well if he loved them he would have allowed them to defend themselves." Right? Pick one. "EXO 33:20 Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." That's right, because God is all powerful. Something wrong with that? See back in the days of imperial reign in China the commoner could not look upon the Emperor because he was considered a living God. BUT..he was not all powerful. God is complex and all powerful. And the human mind can not comprehend this power, but by understanding his nature, we get a glimpse of who he is. "EXO 33:11"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. " Yes, because being God he can allow Moses to speak to him face to face, and when Moses did speak to him, his face changed. Now, God being who he is..he has the power to show himself to who he wants. Right? DavinCreed Mar 26, 2009 ... Re: I'm debating 4 people at once on here..and theres not enough room to say what we need to say. "Moses wrote those laws based on the tolerance for sin. Their moral standard was much higher than ours is today. And he was right for doing so, it was their way, and he believed it to be God's way, because at that time God did not tolerate sin. He still doesn't but now you wont without hope. They didn't have cable. lol" "God changed the laws to allow those who were not his chosen nation to be allowed to come to him. The penalty for sin was death. So when Christ came down, he gave specific instructions, believe in me..and follow the laws of my father. He bore our sins..and paid the penalty for us. Now..is that not loving? Or is God still mean?" So God made different rules for different people, hardly a consistent unchanging and just God. "Kill: 1. To commit murder. 2. To inflict cause of death. It's the same. Now, did you know the word Kill is used in tennis? Or how about Hokey? Well, I'm sure God isn't telling us not to play tennis or Hokey now is he? Yes He is against killing, but are you telling me since he is against killing that he is not smart enough to allow his people to defend themselves? See it's how you look at it..Since he allowed his people, the Israelites to defend their lands therefor kill in war..then he's a murderous God..according to you..but then if he didn't allow his people who he loved to defend themselves..then you people wold have said.."Well if he loved them he would have allowed them to defend themselves." Right? Pick one." I pick if he said don't kill, then they shouldn't kill. They and you believed that they were going to heaven so why not follow Gods commandments? This life does not matter if there is an eternity in heaven for following Gods commandments. "Yes, because being God he can allow Moses to speak to him face to face, and when Moses did speak to him, his face changed. Now, God being who he is..he has the power to show himself to who he wants. Right?" The Bible does not say anything about God's face changing. Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 26, 2009 ... Reply... MAT 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Yes, is it right to be angry with someone for no reason? That is hate. All that talks about hate. Whats your point? Are you defending unjust hate? MAT 25:40 Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. He's talking about the poor, when you have given unto the poor or the "least" of these you have given unto me. That means you're showing compassion to those less fortunate. What's the problem here? Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 26, 2009 ... Re: I'm debating 4 people at once on here..and theres not enough room to say what we need to say. Boy it's clear you're more confused than cross dresser. "So God made different rules for different people, hardly a consistent unchanging and just God." No, he made laws for his people and his people only. Wow unbelievable who twisted your mind is to come up with stuff like this. "See it's how you look at it..Since he allowed his people, the Israelites to defend their lands therefor kill in war..then he's a murderous God..according to you..but then if he didn't allow his people who he loved to defend themselves..then you people wold have said.."Well if he loved them he would have allowed them to defend themselves." Right? Pick one." No pick one of these numbnuts. "I pick if he said don't kill, then they shouldn't kill. They and you believed that they were going to heaven so why not follow Gods commandments? This life does not matter if there is an eternity in heaven for following Gods commandments." God said not to kill, murder. He never said anything about war. This life does matter, because Jesus came down to us..because we matter. You're still warped..and FAIL to understand the slightest explanation. "The Bible does not say anything about God's face changing." Dude are you serious? No really? Are you? Because I NEVER SAID GOD'S FACE CHANGED. OYYYYY.. DavinCreed Mar 26, 2009 ... Re: I'm debating 4 people at once on here..and theres not enough room to say what we need to say. "No, he made laws for his people and his people only. Wow unbelievable who twisted your mind is to come up with stuff like this." Yet people who are his followers before followed one set of laws, then God changed the laws so that people following him follow a new set of laws. That is simple and far from twisted. "No pick one of these numbnuts." Again with insults when I have not once insulted you. This statement is known as a false dilemma where only one of two things can be true where in fact many other options exist that can be true. Fallacies are illogical. "God said not to kill, murder. He never said anything about war. This life does matter, because Jesus came down to us..because we matter. You're still warped..and FAIL to understand the slightest explanation." God wrote on the stone tablets, "Thou shalt not kill." No special exceptions. If God meant murder, he should have wrote murder. "Dude are you serious? No really? Are you? Because I NEVER SAID GOD'S FACE CHANGED. OYYYYY.." "Yes, because being God he can allow Moses to speak to him face to face, and when Moses did speak to him, his face changed. Now, God being who he is..he has the power to show himself to who he wants. Right?" -- you Sure God has to power to do so, but it doesn't say that he did. It may just be a problem with the copying and translation of the Bible, but that would mean that you can't really trust anything in there because it had been copied and translated by hand over several centuries using pen and ink. Sure after several centuries they would write backwards on one page and copy that over to up to ten new pages, but that does not mean that these men were always accurate. Translation is another problem altogether, since you can't just take one language and make it mean exactly the same thing in another language. Which would mean that the Bible is not accurate. If its not accurate, then it cannot be taken literally. If it cannot be taken literally it requires interpretation. Interpretation comes from man and can be wrong. Not to mention that the people who would have originally wrote it would not have an understanding of many of the things that we now know. They could have seen lightning and said it was the hand of God, and for all their understanding, to them, that is what it was. Natural disasters could easily have been written off as "God did it" because they were sinners. Whatever comforts them, because they wouldn't know better. It what druids did before Christianity even existed, blaming gods for this and that, good things and bad things. I find it hypocritical to say that they were wrong, and you are right, despite that the reasoning is the same with the difference of their many gods and your one God. There is historical and archeological proof that there were other religions that predate the Bible. If you want me to believe that the historical and archeological proof of the Bible is accurate then I must also believe the same techniques applied to other things is also accurate. Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 26, 2009 ... Re: IF you don't read this, don't expect anymore returns. "I am sure all the babies in Sodom and Gomorrah were evil sinners too. Despite that Jesus said children are innocent." Ohhh so now you're turning from war..to all the poor innocent babies. Funny how you stand up for them now, but wont stand up for the unborn. Hypocrite. Anyway, You're about to get schooled kiddo.. If you were to read atheist's websites, you will often find complaints that the God of the Bible arbitrarily ordered the destruction of entire cities, such as Jericho, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. How could a loving God command the destruction of all those "innocent" people? The argument sounds good, but it is utterly false. The unstated assumption is that the people who God ordered destroyed were morally equivalent to the Jews, who replaced them. However, this is what the Bible says about the people who were destroyed: "It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 9:5) Okay, how "wicked" could those people have been? How about killing their own sons and daughters by burning them in sacrifices to their gods: "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31) The wickedness of these people is confirmed in other verses of the Bible.3 So we see that these people are not quite as innocent as the atheists would like you to believe. Then again, maybe those atheists believe that killing your children is not all bad. After all, killing viable pre-born babies is legal in this country (it's called a choice, a.k.a. abortion). For these reasons (and others4), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed. Did God kill any innocent people along with the evil ones? When God was about to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would destroy the cities if there were 50 righteous people in them.5 God said no. Then Abraham asked the same question if there were 45 righteous people. Every time he dropped the number and got the same answer. The fact is that God would not have destroyed those cities if there were any righteous people in them. The few righteous who were in those cities He warned ahead of time to get out.6 So, God does not destroy the righteous along with the evil. "He changes the rules from "don't kill" to "kill." Killing is war, is still killing, which God clearly says do not do, but often just as clearly, tells people to kill." No, God was talking about murder. War is something else. "He changes the rules from the laws of Moses to the ten commandments then to Jesus'." No, he changed the laws of Moses, and kept his fathers commandments. Get it? get it? do ya? I doubt that you will understand a word I typed here, you're going to single out a word then make a twist on it to give it a whole new meaning. Nice evolutionist. DavinCreed Mar 26, 2009 ... Re: IF you don't read this, don't expect anymore returns. "Ohhh so now you're turning from war..to all the poor innocent babies. Funny how you stand up for them now, but wont stand up for the unborn. Hypocrite. Anyway, You're about to get schooled kiddo." First, what the hell are you talking about I won't stand up for the unborn? Wow, I guess assuming extra meaning in a book that is supposed to be literal (that clearly isn't), will cause you to assume all sorts of things. Completely untrue. Never once have I stated anything about unborn babies and yet you lie to yourself into thinking that you know me. If the Bible contradicting itself and not making sense was not enough to make me disbelieve in the Christian mythology, then hate filled, illogical, assuming, mentally twisted "Christians" like yourself would definitely do the trick. There is no logical reason to believe in God. Just like there is no logical reason to not believe in God. As for schooled: "Okay, how '"wicked"' could those people have been? How about killing their own sons and daughters by burning them in sacrifices to their gods" That does not say the sons and daughters were evil. I can hardly imagine a five year old sacrificing his sons and daughters. Even if a five year old were to sacrifice someone else, I find it hard to believe that they would know what they were doing. And yet God felt it was OK to kill them despite, that God is supposed to be all powerful, could have saved the children and killed everyone else. "No, God was talking about murder. War is something else. " You can interpret the commandments differently than what they say all you want. Killing is ending a life, people kill in war. If God was talking about murder, why did he not say murder? He said kill. Kill: 1 a: to deprive of life : cause the death of b (1): to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2): to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering 2 a: to put an end to b: defeat , veto c: to mark for omission ; also : delete d: annihilate , destroy 3 a: to destroy the vital or essential quality of b: to cause to stop c: to check the flow of current through 4: to make a markedly favorable impression on 5: to get through uneventfully ; also : to get through (the time of a penalty) without being scored on 6 a: to cause extreme pain to b: to tire almost to the point of collapse 7: to hit (a shot) so hard in various games that a return is impossible 8: to consume (as a drink) totallyintransitive verb 1: to deprive one of life 2: to make a markedly favorable impression Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought 2 a: something very difficult or dangerous b: something outrageous or blameworthy Take out the slang meanings that wer developed after the time the Bible was translated into English: Kill: 1 a: to deprive of life : cause the death of b (1): to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2): to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering totallyintransitive verb 1: to deprive one of life Murder: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought If God meant murder, he should have written murder, but he didn't; he wrote kill. If you want to keep up the slang developed after the Bible was translated into English, they are still two different meanings. You want to translate the words differently, to make it seem like God is not a hypocrite, which means there is a problem with how it was written. Since there is a problem with how it was written, then either God is fallible or the men writing, translating and/or copying it were fallible. Either way, the Bible cannot be taken at its word. "No, he changed the laws of Moses, and kept his fathers commandments. Get it? get it? do ya?" Yes I get it, he let some people follow a lesser set of laws and everyone else follow a higher set. Not consistent. Not just. Clearly, the laws that God's followers are supposed to follow had changed. Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 27, 2009 ... Re: IF you don't read this, don't expect anymore returns. "First, what the hell are you talking about I won't stand up for the unborn? Wow, I guess assuming extra meaning in a book that is supposed to be literal (that clearly isn't), will cause you to assume all sorts of things. Completely untrue. Never once have I stated anything about unborn babies and yet you lie to yourself into thinking that you know me. If the Bible contradicting itself and not making sense was not enough to make me disbelieve in the Christian mythology, then hate filled, illogical, assuming, mentally twisted "Christians" like yourself would definitely do the trick." Ohhh reallyyyyy.. Soooo, you're pro life? So tell me, why? (tried to drag this out of you and I succeeded.) :) "There is no logical reason to believe in God. Just like there is no logical reason to not believe in God." Of course there are logical reasons to believe in God. But you're right..there are no logical reasons not to. See, you can't have one without the other, you can not say..there is no logical reason to believe then say there is no logical reason not to, because in saying there is no logical reason not to, you contradict the logical reason to believe. That shows that you are self contradicting in thought. "That does not say the sons and daughters were evil. I can hardly imagine a five year old sacrificing his sons and daughters. Even if a five year old were to sacrifice someone else, I find it hard to believe that they would know what they were doing. And yet God felt it was OK to kill them despite, that God is supposed to be all powerful, could have saved the children and killed everyone else." If you saw a child suicide bomber, which there are, they are trained by their parents, come towards you, to take your life. What would you do? Take his life? Or reason with him? Or let him kill you? I know what you would say..something stupid like.."Let him kill me." Even tho you would leave your family and children without a father. You gave up your children for the sake of a child who was trained to do evil. Is that very logical? See, when a child is raised in an environment that is Evil..what will the child learn? To be evil. If I raise my kids to be thieves..chances are they will be thieves. If someone raises their children to hate..then those children will hate. That is evil. So you're standing up, not for children..but for evil. You're making excuses to make God out to be unjust. In a sad attempt to prove you're right. But all you're doing is making excuses for the existence of evil. Sad. Oh so it's GOD'S fault now lol...wow you're really lame lame lame. It's pathetic. God knew what they were doing BECAUSE HE'S GOD. Oh so God should have came down and saved those kids from being sacrificed??? Are you telling God what to do? Because you're better? You should be God? Is that what you're implying? You're arguments are pathetic. Satan does influence you..He's the accuser..and that's exactly what you're doing. "You can interpret the commandments differently than what they say all you want. Killing is ending a life, people kill in war. If God was talking about murder, why did he not say murder? He said kill." This is going to be long kiddo..but I doubt you have the wisdom to understand..but I'm going to give it to you anyway. Oh and you better read it because I'm not going over this with you again. If you really wanna learn something then you're going to. The sixth commandment is "Thou shall not kill."1 Atheists claim that God violated His own commandment in ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the hypocrisy of the God of the Bible? One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, English has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill." However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.6-8 The punishment for murder was the death sentence.9 However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.11 To answer the question whether God breaks His own commandments, we need to determine if God committed murder (i.e., killed people without cause). The Bible is quite clear that God has killed people directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples to be killed). If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty of murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples. What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan?14 What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked.15 How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.16 So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others17), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed. Surely God could have spared the children! People tend to assume that children are innocent, even if their parents are doing bad things. The assumption is unfounded. For example, Palestinian Muslim children are officially taught in grammar school to hate their Jewish neighbors.18 They are so well indoctrinated that some of them give up their lives in suicide bombings as children.19 Corruption literally does breed corruption, which is why God did not want the Hebrews tainted by the other corrupt cultures of the Middle East. Surely there must have been other innocent adults in those cities who were destroyed with the wicked! There actually is an example of a time when God was asked if He would destroy the innocent along with the wicked. Prior to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would destroy the righteous along with the wicked.20 God replied that He would spare the entire city for 50 righteous people.21 Abraham kept reducing the possible number of righteous people, asking God if He would destroy the entire city along with those number of righteous people.22 God's reply in each case was that He would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. The lowest number Abraham asked about was ten righteous people, although the answer would likely be the same with as few as one righteous individual. How do we know this? God sent two angels to warn the four righteous people in Sodom to flee before He destroyed the city.23 It is quite convenient that such details are usually left out of atheistic sites complaining about the "evil" perpetrated by God. In fact, God saved certain people from being killed in cities such as Jericho.24 The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts. Did you learn something? You better have read it, because I'm not going over it again with you. If you bring it up..I'm ignoring it, because that just means you're not smart enough to absorb it. And it will be just another petty excuse. "If God meant murder, he should have written murder, but he didn't; he wrote kill. If you want to keep up the slang developed after the Bible was translated into English, they are still two different meanings. You want to translate the words differently, to make it seem like God is not a hypocrite, which means there is a problem with how it was written. Since there is a problem with how it was written, then either God is fallible or the men writing, translating and/or copying it were fallible. Either way, the Bible cannot be taken at its word." I gave you an example of he original Hebrew text that it was written. Now, you can drop this definition of kill or murder garbage because it's no longer holding any water for you. "You want to translate the words differently, to make it seem like God is not a hypocrite, which means there is a problem with how it was written." Ohhh so now "I WANT TO TRANSLATE THE WORDS DIFFERENTLY" Nope WRONG. No there is not a problem in how the words were written, you need to study the bible and study Hebrew text to understand what it's talking about, not come up with your own stupidity to validate your theory. "Since there is a problem with how it was written, then either God is fallible or the men writing, translating and/or copying it were fallible. " No, it is not fallible. You're mind is fallible, because you don't have the basic understanding. The reason I can say that you're stupid in an attempt to translate the scriptures is this. What you're saying is that because it's not specific to YOU..it's not valid. So what you want, is for the bible to make it easy for you to understand it because you're not smart enough to comprehend it are you? You know what? If I were you, I would stop trying to quote scripture or even argue against the word, it is obvious that you're not in the tiniest bit..smart enough to understand it. "Yes I get it, he let some people follow a lesser set of laws and everyone else follow a higher set. Not consistent. Not just. Clearly, the laws that God's followers are supposed to follow had changed." Wow does stupid leak out your ears? "He LET some people follow lesser set of laws"??? NO THEY CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THOSE LAWS. (looks up) Lord, did you let this one skip the brain department up there?? For Pete's sake. Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 27, 2009 ... Re: I'm debating 4 people at once on here..and theres not enough room to say what we need to say. "Yet people who are his followers before followed one set of laws, then God changed the laws so that people following him follow a new set of laws. That is simple and far from twisted." Jesus Christ abolished the old laws of Moses, if a woman is found to commit adultery she would have been stoned, Now since Christ, she could come to the Father and be forgiven. Yeah that is twisted all right. "Again with insults when I have not once insulted you. This statement is known as a false dilemma where only one of two things can be true where in fact many other options exist that can be true. Fallacies are illogical." Because you're stupid, I'm pointing out a fact. Every thing you come up with is sheer stupidity. If I wanted to insult you I would have, I would have cursed at you. Even the bible says "To believe there is no God makes you a fool." I'm trying to make you realize the things you're saying are foolish. If you want me to be a bit more nice I can. For your sake. But man...think before you speak. Be logical about what you say. And pay attention to what you're reading from me. Do that..and be logical. If you don't understand I'll explain it...but don't come back with these really lame excuses because that's what they read like. If you want to debate me...on the bible..READ IT..and understand it. All you do is read and take at face value what it says. You can't do that with anything, you have to really study it, to comprehend it. Ok give me an example of other options being true. Go ahead. "God wrote on the stone tablets, "Thou shalt not kill." No special exceptions. If God meant murder, he should have wrote murder." Did you read my last mail to you? Did you? I'll explain it ONE MORE time. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, English has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill." However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.6-8 The punishment for murder was the death sentence.9 However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.11 Understand??? I hope you do, you're not a bad guy, you're a cool dude. But please man..understand what I'm typing to you. "and when Moses did speak to him, his face changed." Read it again, Where did I say God's face changed? I am referring to Moses. "It may just be a problem with the copying and translation of the Bible, but that would mean that you can't really trust anything in there because it had been copied and translated by hand over several centuries using pen and ink." Oh so now that its not translated properly in a way that you can understand it, and you refuse to waste time learning from it? Funny thing, it was translated over by hand..yet..WE STILL FIND ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL accuracies in it. Hmmmmm... "Sure after several centuries they would write backwards on one page and copy that over to up to ten new pages, but that does not mean that these men were always accurate." The bible is the most historically and archeologically accurate book in the world. Now tell me again..it's not accurate? Translation is another problem altogether, since you can't just take one language and make it mean exactly the same thing in another language." Which would mean that the Bible is not accurate. If its not accurate, then it cannot be taken literally. If it cannot be taken literally it requires interpretation. Interpretation comes from man and can be wrong." Nope, all that's wrong. It's just foolish assumptions and mindless rabble. But I'll leave you with this...The bible even predicted you. Yes, you...evolutionists. It is logical.. The great men of the Bible prophesied accurately that highly educated men and women who scoff at God and His revealed Word would dominate our world. Although men have sneered at God in every generation beginning with Adam, ours was to be the worst. The Apostle Paul wrote, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (Romans 1:21-22, 28). Although Paul is speaking specifically about the earliest men, we have not changed for the better; we have grown worse. Since the 17th and 18th centuries, men have produced an amazing fund of knowledge in the industrial and scientific areas. Yet pursuing knowledge about God has been left out. Our generation knows less about God and what God is doing than any prior generation. Modern leaders in education, science and industry have created a science-centric world. They have pushed religion into the outer fringes of our civilization. Ours is not a religious age—though some may think it to be so. Paul saw into our day and said that end-time religion has a form of godliness, but that men deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5). Most of the worlds educated believe that mankind has outgrown the need for God. God has been made to seem powerless. This fact should alarm us. It is time we turn back to the all-powerful God. The Apostle Peter wrote, Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts . For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (2 Peter 3:3, 5-6). Peter states clearly that one of the hallmarks of our day is a willing ignorance of God. The truth is, men could know much more about God but choose not to. What does this mean? Peter warns that willing ignorance of God, along with a great expansion in all other fields of knowledge, is the cause of the soon-coming, final global disaster (verse 7). Mankind, assuming self-rule without God, will bring itself to the brink of annihilation. Thankfully, God promises to intervene and stop our self-destruction. Here are some perfect examples of what Paul and Peter are talking about. Bertrand Russell, the late British philosopher and avowed agnostic, wrote this in his History of Western Philosophy: The early history of the Israelites cannot be confirmed from any source outside of the Old Testament, and it is impossible to know at what point it ceases to be purely legendary. Mr. Russell dismisses the Bible as unreliable legend in just a few sentences. Even though first printed in 1945, his book is still widely read by university students and is considered one of the best books of its kind. Young, bright minds have been and still are being prejudiced against the Bible, the foundation of true knowledge. Historian R.G. Collingwood, in his book The Idea of History (printed posthumously in 1946), tagged the Bible as theocratic history and myth. Most scholars lower the Bible to the level of Homer—mythology in poetic form. Unfortunately, many Bible scholars, ministers and theologians agree. Yet, there are mountains of evidence to prove otherwise. The Bible is a book of accurate history. Contrary to what Mr. Russell had to say, there is evidence outside the Bible that proves the reality of its history. However, we hear very little about this evidence. Archaeology has confirmed without question the historical accuracy of the Bible. The contribution of archaeology to the Bible record is far from over. In August this year, an incredible find was unearthed in the Old City of Jerusalem. The event did not make national news. It should have! Workers repairing a sewage-pipe break uncovered the Pool of Siloam in Old Jerusalem. This pool was a major gathering site for the Jews. The Pool of Siloam is central to the account of the miracle of Christ healing a man blind from birth (John 9:1-7). Christ put clay on the mans eyes and then told him to wash at the Pool of Siloam. Obeying Christ by washing in the pool completed the miracle (verse 11). This created an incredible stir among the Jewish elite of Christs day (verses 14-41). Why? Jesus Christ had made the clay with His own spit on the Sabbath day. The Jews considered this act a breaking of the Sabbath command. Jealous and insecure, the Pharisees declared that Christ was not of God for healing the blind man on the Sabbath (verse 16). A study of the whole chapter makes plain that the entire incident was used by God to show the Pharisees how blind they were to God and what God was doing on this Earth. Of course, they failed to learn that lesson. Why is all this important today? Here is what the Los Angeles Times reported about this incredible archaeological find: Scholars have said that there wasnt a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, we have found the Pool of Siloam exactly where John said it was. A Gospel that was thought to be pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history, he said (August 9). Do we get it? The scholars are wrong—again. The Bible is accurate—always! Unfortunately, this archaeological event received very little attention. What if it had? Think about what this find tells us. It not only establishes the historical accuracy of Johns Gospel, it reinforces the historicity of Jesus Christ. The find also establishes that it is Gods desire to heal mankind of seemingly impossible health crises. God is very real and very powerful. Our modern scholars have their part in making many men, women and children as spiritually blind as the Pharisees of Christs day. Its time for all people to seriously question Bible critics. It is time for all Bible critics to stop pointing their finger at God—to quit casting doubt on the Bible record and start learning the true knowledge that will solve all humanitys problems. See? You're just a link in the chain. You are one of those, that the bible mentions. You better be right...because He's coming back, and from the looks of things...it's going to be very soon. You said you would rather be with those who agree with you? You won't, you will feel alone...no hope...nothing..no one to hear you...the Bible says..that Hell is a place of forever torment. You better be right....because Dawkins won't be able to help you...he won't be able to explain things through science...He may say that it's all in your head....but it's going to feel very real. I'm not trying to scare you...in fact I don't care if you believe me or not..I'll just wipe the dust off of my shoes and move on. But one day...you're going to think about me....and you're going to wish...that you believe me. DavinCreed Mar 27, 2009 ... Re: IF you don't read this, don't expect anymore returns. If you want to upset me, then you need more than logical fallacies and insults. First you would have to show that you can understand things logically, then you would have to start using valid reasoning. Sometimes I get interested in something and pay close attention to it, to try learn as much as I can about it. When there is very little to learn about a subject, I move onto to something else quickly. What it means is that its not your fault, but you are boring me. What these arguments always get to is: God exists because the Bible says so, the Bible says so because God exists. There is nothing outside of the Bible, that does not use the Bible, that gives any evidence that the Christian mythology is true. It is very common for people use those that are easily swayed, to believe the things they say. Even if events in the Bible are true, that does not mean the people that wrote it did not use the easily bended minds to their advantage. I doubt your mind has the ability to grasp the concept of your hypocrisy, of going around calling other people stupid for believing in things with evidence, but saying you are not stupid for believing in something with even less evidence. If you want to believe in a God, then have at it, but if you want other people to also believe, then try logic next time and stay away from fallacies. Have fun. Lichtspielhaus234 Mar 27, 2009 ... Re: IF you don't read this, don't expect anymore returns. "If you want to upset me, then you need more than logical fallacies and insults. First you would have to show that you can understand things logically, then you would have to start using valid reasoning." I didn't insult you, I am pointing out your foolishness. Oh I can, but you haven't. I am reasonable and logical. You're not, that is evident of the responses you sent me. A complete and total misunderstanding of everything I said. Funny, it's easy for me to understand, but then again, I research and research. You for some reason have some difficulty. Why? "Sometimes I get interested in something and pay close attention to it, to try learn as much as I can about it. When there is very little to learn about a subject, I move onto to something else quickly. What it means is that its not your fault, but you are boring me. What these arguments always get to is: God exists because the Bible says so, the Bible says so because God exists. There is nothing outside of the Bible, that does not use the Bible, that gives any evidence that the Christian mythology is true." No, you don't, because if you were paying attention you would have understood what I sent you. But you don't. I think it's above your head. You have offered very little. All you have is a theory. Nothing more, no proof. You haven't answered a single question I sent you. No, God exists because of historical and archeological accuracy, and I showed that to you..but you didn't read it did you? Yup, I was right..I had you pegged. I knew I was right. See, with all the evidence I presented of historical and archeological science....you don't accept because you don't want to. It's not that there's no evidence in which there is, Scientists from all over the world would agree with me. You don't believe because you don't want to. "It is very common for people use those that are easily swayed, to believe the things they say. Even if events in the Bible are true, that does not mean the people that wrote it did not use the easily bended minds to their advantage." That's a desperate explanation in a sad attempt to falsely accuse facts to be fiction. "I doubt your mind has the ability to grasp the concept of your hypocrisy, of going around calling other people stupid for believing in things with evidence, but saying you are not stupid for believing in something with even less evidence. If you want to believe in a God, then have at it, but if you want other people to also believe, then try logic next time and stay away from fallacies." You have yet to rebuttal anything I sent you, you have not once refuted a thing I sent. Why? Because you're not smart enough to debate me. You're not educated enough to understand. You have no wisdom. There is no evidence, I have refuted the so called evidence you sent me with quotes from your own scientists..in which you have YET to refute. No, I'm not stupid..I am reasonable, logical..and have a wide understanding of the function of things. You are not who you say you are. I use logic, but I'm not trying to get you to believe in God, I'm trying to show you how foolish the theory of evolution is. Oh by the way evolution got challenged in the state of Texas and now student have every right to question the discrepancies in evolution. AND teachers must also teach the discrepancies within evolution. :) You have not refuted anything I sent you. Not one thing. Therefore if you were who you said you were..you wouldn't have given up so fast. But you are, and not because I'm boring..or..i have no logic..it's because you can not refute a thing I wrote. Time is up..God is coming..and there is no hope for you. I'm sorry but you made that decision and now you will suffer for it. :) See ya soon. Insults toward me: Stupid = 6 Numbnuts = 1 You're too dumb to understand = 16 You're not smart enough = 4 Twisted mind = 1 Inults from me: hate filled, illogical, assuming, mentally twisted "Christians" like yourself = 1 His Fallacies: Ad Hominem = 29 Appeal to Probability = 5 Argument from Fallacy = 47 Bare assertion fallacy = 8 Fallacy of necessity = 5 Masked man fallacy = 2 Negative proof fallacy = 15 Red herring = 14 Afirming the consequent = 12 Denying the anticedent = 22 Begging the question = 24 Circular cause and consequence = Pretty much everything said Equivocation = 45 Fallacy of many questions = 18 False attribution = 12 Loki's Wager = 6 Cherry picking = 17 False analogy = 4 Straw man = 38 My Fallacies: Argument from Fallacy = 4 Bare assertion fallacy = 1 Cherry picking = 5 False analogy = 2 Straw man = 7