Ok, serious question,
How did God come into being?

And if he was "already here" explain why.

ah thats what IMO stands for.

Note the word "reliable",
The dictionary gives the following as a description of the word.
1. Capable of being relied on; dependable: a reliable assistant; a reliable car.
2. Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials.
People with any faint belief in science will not accept opinions on these type if matters, if they can not get reliable scientific proof.

When you say faint belief in science what part of science are you refering to? If evolution then I have no belief in it. The fact that you say belief in science raises a point. It is a belief, a great deal is not fact but only considered fact.

Im impressed that you can use a dictionary, now lets try applying it.

The word reliable is a very good description of the bible.
not once does it contradict, some small minded people take it out of context and do not understand basic jewish culture.

Try to proove that anything in the bible is wrong, try to proove God does not exist. Both are impossible. You would have to search all time and space in order to have any Idea of wheather an infinate being exists.

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

vs.

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

Lets look at the dictionary. repent can mean

To feel remorse for; be contrite about, show penitence for; contrition for ones actions.

When it says God repented from doing something basicly its saying he feels remorse.

Human repentance is turning away from a wrong thing.

The language of the time had many different words for different things for examle 3 words for love.

It would not surprise me if the language has more than one word for repent. The dictionary shows us the different meaings of the word and if we look at the verses in context we can apply the meanings that would mean that the bible does not contradict.

Anymore suposed contradictions?

If you understand that there are possible mis-interpretations in the in the translation of the bible, then you cannot take all of the bible literally,another case of mis-interpretation is the translation of "many" which is classed in the bible as "40".

The interpretation of the bible is an individual thing, and you do not have the right to tell anyone else they are wrong as they can do exactly the same to you.

Can you explain why God has changed mind from the old testament: an eye for an eye, to the new testament: turn the other cheek.
God appears to have contradicted himself


If he is all powerful and all knowing, then why did he have to change his mind?

p.s could you also answer my previous question,

the father of light ..

if someone created electric lighting with for example that time you will be seen of the creater of light out of nothing because they them selves couldn't do it only the ones whom came from the skies.
as the old text spoke. Elohim = Those who came from the sky" in ancient Hebrew.
I only ask if we not mistakenly given some alien visitors the label of A god.
because my opinion is that even the scifi serie stargate bair more truth than what we know say about god(s)

Originally posted by skeptik
Can you explain why God has changed mind from the old testament: an eye for an eye, to the new testament: turn the other cheek.
God appears to have contradicted himself


If he is all powerful and all knowing, then why did he have to change his mind?

p.s could you also answer my previous question,

The answer is found in Covenant theology, understanding the difference between the old and new covenants. Eye for an eye is from the Law of Moses, the old covenant. Jesus fulfilled the law on the cross and by this broke us from the bondage of the Law of Moses. It's difficult to explain in just a few lines, but like I said it's easy to understand if you have a grasp on covenant theology.
The Law of Moses actually paved the way for what Jesus would do on the cross.

Originally posted by Adrianay
Lets look at the dictionary. repent can mean

To feel remorse for; be contrite about, show penitence for; contrition for ones actions.

When it says God repented from doing something basicly its saying he feels remorse.

Human repentance is turning away from a wrong thing.

The language of the time had many different words for different things for examle 3 words for love.

It would not surprise me if the language has more than one word for repent. The dictionary shows us the different meaings of the word and if we look at the verses in context we can apply the meanings that would mean that the bible does not contradict.

Anymore suposed contradictions?

Ok, so how have you actually disproved those contradictions?

Looking at your dictionary definitions of Repent, you have not taken anything away from these contradictions. Remorse, contrite, penitence and contrition have exactly the same meaning. There are no two ways about it.

penitent

\Pen"i*tent\, n. 1. One who repents of sin; one sorrowful on account of his transgressions.

2. One under church censure, but admitted to penance; one undergoing penance.

contrite

1. Broken down with grief and penitence; deeply sorrowful for sin because it is displeasing to God; humbly and thoroughly penitent.

You said that when we look at the lines in context with the new meanings then it does not contradict? Well, you did not back up this argument. Also, I can safely say even reading them in context with the new meanings they would still read the same, and contradict.

Any further comments to try and disprove the contradiction? I'll be glad to re-analyse your next post

That it is a guide to life, not a history of life.

Its both!!!!!!

Now Mr I cant spell your name (although it begins with E) have a look at he hebrew language if you want to try to proove your coment. I still put forth that they have many words for repent.

That it is a guide to life, not a history of life.

Its both!!!!!!

Now Mr I cant spell your name (although it begins with E) have a look at he hebrew language if you want to try to proove your coment. I still put forth that they have many words for repent.

If you understand that there are possible mis-interpretations in the in the translation of the bible, then you cannot take all of the bible literally,

about a third of a page out of the whole bible is considered inacurate and this is only trivial.

-Note to Adrianay-
Posting the same thing twice is not going to make people read it more indepthly. They may have many words for repent, would you like to tell us what they are, and even if they do have many words for repent, they still mean repent.

Will anyone answer my previous question?

Quote
[How did God come into being?

And if he was "already here" explain why.]

The first book of the bible genesis makes no sense. There are so many freeking contradictions in it that it is mind numbing. Now, if you read some of the later revised versions of the bible that have so conveniently been "MORE ACCURATELY TRANSLATED" to eliminate some of these, it is still mind numbing. It even gets better when you compare some of that nonsense to the New Testament. Ugh........

A god that I would worship would not allow his subjects to divide over him in the way that you christians do.

So, for all you christian people out there........thanks for continuing the process and cycle of division and violence going on. If it wasnt for you religious people...why would we even need wars! I mean...who doesn't want war and suffering?

Originally posted by Truth

Man i would advise you not to get into it with all the scientifical discussions because with these come lies and lies ect..


nature is to beuatiful to just come out of nowhere. animals are to joyful and loving to just appear like this. our bodies work so awesome and are so perfectly for each other that nothing cannot do this.



I could list millions of amazements of this world, but what it comes down to is pride. even is athiest knew god had to creat this world or a God he requires too much out of them and he always gets denied. I mean if someone had a gun to my head and said: deny God and his existence, i truly could not do it because of the worlds beauties, the miracles, the joy and love, nature ect ect... a soul knows God exist even if they try and hide it, they know deep down.




Peace.

Hello Mr. Truth.

I have a question for you. Tell me how it was that the "Pug" came to be as we know it today. Do a little research and find out. Then come find me. Have fun...(By the way...pugs are not referenced in the bible so you will have to look somewhere else...I know it will be hard)

we are in phenoumena
god is noumena
noumena is beyond the vibrational realm
people in physical existence in the phantasmagorical
realm cannot understand how something can exist without a begining
God is without begining or end
unfortunately unless you are realized this cocept is hard to grasp

Originally posted by Adrianay
Now Mr I cant spell your name (although it begins with E) have a look at he hebrew language if you want to try to proove your coment. I still put forth that they have many words for repent.

Okay, I have taken up your challenge of going back to the old hebrew and finding evidence to support my claim. First off, hebrew uses two words for the meaning of Repent "shub" and "nacham." In the two following passages the Repent is refered to the "nacham" version of repent, meaning to "change one's mind" or "go back".

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should [nacham]repent."

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I [nacham]repent."

The word "nacham" is also used in the the following passage that contradicts with the upper two.

Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God [nacham]repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

Also in Exodus 32:14 the author uses the word "shub" meaning to turn back or go back [repenting] crossreference this with Ezekiel 24:14 where the author clearly states that he will not go back.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think they are a couple of clear contradictions. Perhaps you want me to find you some more? I more than welcome the challenge.

~MrE

contradictions in the bible there are
due to it being translated so many times
and there were some bad men at the council of constantinople and the council of nicea who added some things that didnt belong and took out some things that did

Ok, serious question, How did God come into being? And if he was "already here" explain why.

God was, he didnt come in to being. With everything theory of the universe there is a constant. Energy for example has always been here, never increasing or decreasing. The big bang theory believes certain chenicals to have always been there. Why is it you can believe that energy mass and chemicals can have always been here but not God?

If at one point there was nothing at all tell me how something can come out of nothing, it is an impossibility.
God has always been and will always be.

You said that when we look at the lines in context with the new meanings then it does not contradict? Well, you did not back up this argument. Also, I can safely say even reading them in context with the new meanings they would still read the same, and contradict.

In the bible it uses personification to describe God to us and his actions towards us. for example it says God streched out his arms. Does he have arms, did he use his arms if he has them or his power to save? It was his power. It uses things we can relate to to try to give us a description of God. The thing about repentance can also be considered personification.

The first book of the bible genesis makes no sense. There are so many freeking contradictions in it that it is mind numbing.

Where?

Originally posted by Adrianay

You said that when we look at the lines in context with the new meanings then it does not contradict? Well, you did not back up this argument. Also, I can safely say even reading them in context with the new meanings they would still read the same, and contradict.

In the bible it uses personification to describe God to us and his actions towards us. for example it says God streched out his arms. Does he have arms, did he use his arms if he has them or his power to save? It was his power. It uses things we can relate to to try to give us a description of God. The thing about repentance can also be considered personification.

Ummmm, how is the repentance contradiction a personification? It clearly states that bible-god does not repent, then bible-god repents. How is this a personification? I agree with you as far as their are personifications in the bible, but it cannot be applied here, it is clearly stating bible-gods emotions.

~MrE

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by MrEisenhower]

Mr Eisenhower 1, Adrianay 0



edit
If God was already there, then this must mean that you could accept the energy string theory?

[Edited on 20-3-2004 by skeptik]