100% Flawless Proof of God

First let me start off by sayin that I've always believed in God and hopefully this will open some eyes and change some hearts. It's been a long time comin but I've finally got enough evidence to make some people possibly reconsider atheism.
"The bible was inscribed over a period of 2,000 years in times of war and in days of peace. It was written by kings, fishermen, beggers, sheppards, merchants, and carpenters. The marvel is that a work of art so perfectly coheisive could have been structured by such a diverse crowd."

And another arguement that noone can ever disprove is

"If God doesn't exist, then who's bowling when it thunders?"

While, I certainly believe in God, what you're suggesting is not "flawless proof" of anything. By the way, a work is not cohesive when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't relayt the same messages..

[edit on 13-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Have you read the Bible lately? It is hardly cohesive. There are two different versions of the creation myth in genesis.

Furthermore, the bible can't be used to prove the existence of god. That is a type of logical fallacy. Basically, that is assuming the existence of god based on a book. There is no external evidence that can't be explained more rationally and better by science.

The bible is not proof there is a god.

To Speaker of Truth: How so? I always think it's funny when critics say "The Gospels all conflict each other!" Then turn around and use the Synoptic Gospel problem by saying the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were copied almost verbatim from Mark because they are so similar. It can only be one or the other. So let me know if there is something I can help with or clarify for you.

To the original poster: It is indeed interesting that the Bible was written by dozens of men over centuries yet they all agree whereas texts like the Koran and the Mormon "Bible" were written by one man with one revelation.

But my belief in Christianity goes so much farther than just a coherent message in the Bible. The fulfillment of prophecy to the letter, the way underlying subjects mesh together once you engage in exegesis, advanced scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, the way everything that is supposed to happen before Jesus' second coming is happening before our eyes (and the things left to be fulfilled are being prepared by current world events), the historical accuracy of the Bible, spiritual and miraculous occurrences I've been able to witness, and everything else that goes along with Christian apologetics.

The only thing I regret is all the time I wasted being a die-hard skeptic for so many years when I thought it was all a big man-made lie.

Originally posted by AshleyD
To Speaker of Truth: How so? I always think it's funny when critics say "The Gospels all conflict each other!" Then turn around and use the Synoptic Gospel problem by saying the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were copied almost verbatim from Mark because they are so similar. It can only be one or the other. So let me know if there is something I can help with or clarify for you.

Cohesiveness implies thay are just alike... They are not. In certain instances what Mark said happened, Luke said something else happened, et cetera. Yet, they were at the same event..

Originally posted by AshleyD
To Speaker of Truth: How so? I always think it's funny when critics say "The Gospels all conflict each other!" Then turn around and use the Synoptic Gospel problem by saying the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were copied almost verbatim from Mark because they are so similar. It can only be one or the other. So let me know if there is something I can help with or clarify for you.

Cohesiveness implies thay are just alike... They are not. In certain instances what Mark said happened, Luke said something else happened, et cetera. Yet, they were at the same event..

Here is an example of what I am referring to

According to Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Herod the king" (Matt. 2: 1 ). Herod died in the year 4 BC, but Jesus was born at least two years before the death of Herod, for Herod is recorded by Matthew as long waiting for the return of the "wise men" to report on the new-born King of the Jews, and as massacring all the children "from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men" (Matt. 2: 16 ). Jesus was thus born at least six years BC, if Herod died immediately after the massacre of the Innocents, which is not likely. Matthew thus lays the birth of Jesus in 6 BC at the earliest.

Luke makes out the birth to have been at earliest in the year 7 AD or thirteen years later. Luke tells of Joseph and Mary's going from Galilee to Bethlehem to be taxed, and says that Jesus was born while they were in Bethlehem on this fanciful mission. For, he says, "in those days. ... there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)" (Luke 2: 1-7 ). It is well known that Galilee was annexed to Syria and Cyrenius (Quirinius) made governor in AD 7. A classic authority may be taken, out of many, to fix this date. Josephus relates: "And now Herod altered his testament and granted the kingdom to Archelaus. ... When he had done these things he died. (Antiq., Bk. 17, chap. 7, sec. 1 ). "But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government" the Jews "accused him before Caesar" who banished him to Vienna in Gaul (Id., chap. 13, sec. 2 ). "So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus" (Id., chap. 13, sec. 5 ). "Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance" (Antiq., Bk. 18, chap. 1, sec. 1 ). "When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Anthony at Actium" (Id., chap. 2, see. 1 ). Luke's taxation was then at a period thirty-seven years after the historic battle of Actium, which took place September 2, 31 BC; the thirty-seventh year after would therefore be between September 2, AD 6 and September 2, AD 7, in which year Luke says Jesus was born.

Which was it?

reply to post by StandFirm


Where's this proof you speak of? All you offered was your opinion that the bible is a miracle. There is no proof of god and there never will be unless he/she/it comes down and makes it know in person. And please dont try and use the complexity of existence to argue the existence of god. Just because we dont understand it yet doesnt mean that god did it, thats the theist cop-out of the ages.

And as for the bible being cohesive, or even a respectably written text, the notion is just ridiculous. There are tons of flaws and contradictions:

Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

source (please visit, this site is awesome)
And thats just 10 of the 42 examples on the source page.

When will you christians learn that you cannot argue your case with the bible. Its just a book, and a pretty poorly written one if I do say so myself!

Originally posted by AshleyD
The fulfillment of prophecy to the letter, the way underlying subjects mesh together once you engage in exegesis, advanced scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, the way everything that is supposed to happen before Jesus' second coming is happening before our eyes (and the things left to be fulfilled are being prepared by current world events), the historical accuracy of the Bible, spiritual and miraculous occurrences I've been able to witness, and everything else that goes along with Christian apologetics.

Advanced scientific foreknowledge? Please elaborate.

As for the second coming predictions in the bible and the "fulfillment of prophecy to the letter" as you put it...

False Prophecies About the Armageddon:

Jesus’ Predictions:

1) Jesus falsely prophesies DIRECTLY to the high priest (Caiphas) that he would live to see his second coming. Jesus uses the term “coming on the clouds of heaven”. This clearly negates the “coming” as the resurrection but as a return to the earth on CLOUDS, not his return in human form from the dead. Matthew 26:64 & Mark 14:62.

"But I tell you: From now on you will see 'the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power' and 'coming on the clouds of heaven.'" (Matthew 26:64 NAB)

Then Jesus answered, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" (Mark 14:62 NAB)
2) Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. Matthew 23:36 & 24:34

Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 NAB)

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:29-35 NAB)

source page
Thats 2 of 18 examples on the source page (a page I love and quote often)

why can it just not be left that some believe he exists some don't...

Its good to have faiths, personally I put mine into science because i can see the result, some prefer the "god did it line" either way as long as your happy.

beliefs are personal, it annoys me when i hear people trying to convert one to the other, after all that is how all wars start (even if only on a small level) the whole subject should be banned! that includes saying he dosent exist as well as saying he does!

Daz Out.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Have you read the Bible lately? It is hardly cohesive. There are two different versions of the creation myth in genesis.

Furthermore, the bible can't be used to prove the existence of god. That is a type of logical fallacy. Basically, that is assuming the existence of god based on a book. There is no external evidence that can't be explained more rationally and better by science.

The bible is not proof there is a god.

Creation cannot be explained rationally by science, unless you are on acid

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Have you read the Bible lately? It is hardly cohesive. There are two different versions of the creation myth in genesis.

Furthermore, the bible can't be used to prove the existence of god. That is a type of logical fallacy. Basically, that is assuming the existence of god based on a book. There is no external evidence that can't be explained more rationally and better by science.

The bible is not proof there is a god.

Creation cannot be explained rationally by science, unless you are on acid

And how exactley does religion do a better job explaining creation huh? Lets see, everything in 7 days by a supposedly all knowing and all powerful (even though to be both is literally IMPOSSIBLE) being? Please, I would love to hear how that is more plausible than the black hole/white hole theory, or even the big bang theory...

Originally posted by Icon_xof

And how exactley does religion do a better job explaining creation huh? Lets see, everything in 7 days by a supposedly all knowing and all powerful (even though to be both is literally IMPOSSIBLE) being? Please, I would love to hear how that is more plausible than the black hole/white hole theory, or even the big bang theory...

If i was a biblical literalist you may have a point- traditionally bible study, Im talking a thousand years ago, viewed anyone who took the bible creation story as literal as a bit cuckoo. The minority who read the bible now as a literal SEVEN DAYS as we understand seven days event are a recent phenomenon (and in my view completely missing the point of the creation story)

That is the point, neither the bible nor science can fully explain or enable our limited brains to understand creation, anyone looking for the LITERAL point point for point understanding of creation in the bible or science is never gonna get it.

reply to post by blueorder


At first you said "Creation cannot be explained rationally by science", leading one to the obvious conclusion that you believe that religion can rationally explain it.

Now you're saying that neither can?

Is that your final answer? lol

Just giving you a hard time. I agree, we have no idea where we came from. The real idiots are the ones who are arrogant enough to believe that we do.

Originally posted by Icon_xof

At first you said "Creation cannot be explained rationally by science", leading one to the obvious conclusion that you believe that religion can rationally explain it.

Now you're saying that neither can?

Is that your final answer?

lol

Just giving you a hard time. I agree, we have no idea where we came from. The real idiots are the ones who are arrogant enough to believe that we do.

that is my view on it, I mean the bible creation story, written several thousand years ago to a bunch of goat herders was never gonna be a science book- I mean how many science books do we have now, on everything, we could probably cover the whole of the earth with all the pages, and we still do not have an idea (or even if I may say, an actual tangible concept) of creation.

I like science because it improves our world, but I also feel books like the bible are there for guidance and deeper philosiphical meanings (which would be in keeping with a non scientific, as we can understand it, afterlife)

[edit on 13-12-2007 by blueorder]

CRUCIFIXION CONTRADICTIONS

In John 12:1-8 the anointing of Jesus took place six days before Passover, not two days prior as is stated in Mark and Matthew. John's setting is Bethany which agrees with Mark and Matthew, but the host, according to John, is Lazarus, not Simon thus contradicting Mark, Matthew and Luke.

www.inu.net...

Cohesive? HAHA!

There's loads more on the site.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by albie]

One day all nonbelievers will have the proof they are always asking for but I pray that it won't be to late for them when it does happen.

I usaully don't come in these threads for this simple reason. You can argue religion 24/7, 356 days a year and you won't get anywhere with it. A book is not proof of God, but to many who believe in it, it is absolute proof and anyone who disagrees with the book needs to be saved or ignored. It's best to explore your ownself and make your own decisions about Gods and religions.

Proof? What proof?

All you have done is stated your opinion. You dont have a source or quote or anything. And as for being cohesive, most people wouldnt have a clue of what half the stuff in there means, and it contradicts itself over and over again.

And do you actually know what causes thunder?

If you are going to post something like this make sure its actual proof and not just your opinion

The reality as you want it to be, has a maker. Then explain to me, who made your god. Did he exist in eternity before he made your christian earth? What was before "eternity"?

Who made the Allah of islam.

Woudn't it be easier if god had just one name all over the world?

Why are there hundreds of religions with different gods.

And last but not least, what makes your god more real than other gods ?