God

[jjj123]

Believe a known fraud and liar then claim others know only half-truths and lies.

Paintings and sculptures don't refute actual historical writing, breh. What else do you have?

​

nothing for you, as you have NOTHING for me

 

[FrederickDouglas]

the thing they cant fight/fend off is death. Death remains undefeated, deep down in their demonic crevice they fear death, knowing its unavoidable. All they can do is cling and hope that when they die that's it, that they were only created for 50,60, 70 , 80 years and that's it.

I'm an atheist who wishes there was an afterlife. I want my soul to be immortal.

But I'm not going to deny logic and reason to make myself feel better like you.

 

[MikelArteta]

I'm an atheist who wishes there was an afterlife. I want my soul to be immortal.

But I'm not going to deny logic and reason to make myself feel better like you.

so you have died and seen what happens next

oh do tell

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

nothing for you, as you have NOTHING for me

Here's something for you:

Horus wasn't 'born of a virgin'. The Egyptian texts clearly state that Isis and Osiris had sex. Osiris (her brother....LOL) was killed and cut into 14 pieces and scattered throughout Egypt. Isis retrieved all the pieces, except his penis because it was eaten by a fish. So, she made a fake one to have sex with Osiris after she revived him (Osiris was 'resurrected', not Horus) to get pregnant with Horus. This fact is reiterated in Utterance 366 of the Pyramid Texts.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts
​

630c. even their god in thee, in thy name of "God."

631 a. They adore thee, so that thou shalt not (again) withdraw from them, in thy name of "Dwȝ-ntr" (or, "divine Dwȝ");

631b. they take care of thee, so that thou mayest not (again) be angry, in thy name of "Dndr.w-boat."

632a. Thy sister comes to thee, rejoicing for love of thee.

632b. Thou hast placed her on thy phallus,

632c. that thy seed may go into her, (while) it is pointed like Sothis.

632d. Horus the pointed has come forth from thee as Horus who was in Sothis.

633a. Thou art pleased with him, in his name of "Spirit who was in the Dndr.w-boat";

633b. he avenges thee, in his name of "Horus, the son, who avenges his father."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt18.htm#page_117

Here is the entire Legend of the Birth of Horus

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg08.htm

So, what you got besides that picture you posted?​

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Why is it all these people keep stating things they cannot support with evidence and expect anyone to believe them, then, get mad when their opinions are proven to be false and/or based on lies?

​

 

[YoungMasterGold]

The text's usage is 'local'. This is evident when the word is seen in other verses throughout the text. For instance, Genesis 10:10....

And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

This would make NO sense if it were to be interpreted as 'the world of Shinar'.​

Meanwhile, in Genesis 1:2 we find.......

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This is a proper interpretation of the 'whole world'. There is no 'force' needed. Strict adherence to text and grammar.​

​

Not quite, once again. Erets, like many words and terms, can be used to refer to different things. Here's Strong's definition of Erets:

Strong's Definition

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world. (source: http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/hwview.cgi?n=776).

So, yes, it would make absolutely no sense to interpret Genesis 10:10 as saying the whole Earth, just as it would be wrong to read Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the country", simply because erets can be translated as country. The text, particularly the language used by the author(s) offer up the intent of the word used.

I certainly agree that erets in Genesis 1:2 means the earth. That's my point. That's the reason interpreting erets as anything other than the whole world gained some traction only after the discovery of an impossible world wide flood. The language most definitely makes it clear that the author means the whole earth. If nothing else, it prevents wags asking why all those birds didn't just fly to the next land. Don't even get me started on the fish . . . of the land?

​

If you want to read 8:19 as the 'whole world', it would be metaphorically so as to make a point that the flood was devastating which would be fine in the context, thus, the waters covering 'all the high mountains' in Genesis 6 isn't an issue. Had the author literally meant 'the entire globe' he could have done so rather than use a figure of speech.​

No. That would be a strange, uncharacteristic departure in the narrative. The preceding verses follow the same pattern as verse 19. There's nothing to suggest that. Having related the devastation of the deluge (see: the whole, everything and everyone died. Even the birds that could fly and the fish that could swim), it's clear that the covering of the mountains wasn't a metaphor. The author meant it, just so it was clear that nothing, even those animals that could fly, climb or perch, could escape using the highest of mountains. The flood waters submerged everything. More context: Noah's boat landed on a mountain.

Also, in 6:17, the usage is just in opposition to 'the heavens', not an indication of 'global'. Figurative language is used extensively throughout Genesis since it is a didactic poem. This is another thing that is lost on casual readers and Fundamentalists/Creationists/literalists. If you don't know the literary form of the text you are reading, you're liable to read it in a way not intended by the author.

I agree figurative language is used extensively in the Bible; however, you're the one who wanted a kind of literal reading of the story of Noah. I'm pointing out you can't have it both ways. You either go for an allegorical reading, or you deal with the actual content of the text if you read it literally (even a little literally, as you're attempting to do). The heavens in the verses are clear: if the flood narrative is taken as - even somewhat - literal, then this is the reality of what happened:

Genesis 6 17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it.

Note that the heavens there aren't used figuratively, but to emphasise it's all life that existed. The same principle applies in the other verse I quoted previously.

​

​

Isn't God supposed to be everywhere at everytime?

Don't remember reading that. You're going to have to show me where that 'entity' states that in the text.

​

How do you know this 'entity' was watching anything? How do you know there was no reason?

​

Hebrews 413 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Jeremiah 23
23 “Am I only a God nearby,”
declares the Lord,
“and not a God far away?
24 Who can hide in secret places
so that I cannot see them?”
declares the Lord.
“Do not I fill heaven and earth?”
declares the Lord.

Which doesn't disprove what I stated to the other poster since there is no indication this 'entity' was watching at that particular time.

​

So the deity in that verse recorded it? I mean it had to do something to retrieve the data because "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." Is this the one where the Bible God is supposedly able to see all because it fills "heaven and earth", but somehow misses incidents because it bolsters your argument?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Not quite, once again. Erets, like many words and terms, can be used to refer to different things.

That's not at dispute. What I stated was that if the author had intended to mean the 'whole world', he had the vocabulary to make that ABSOLUTELY clear with no ambiguity.
​

So, yes, it would make absolutely no sense to interpret Genesis 10:10 as saying the whole Earth, just as it would be wrong to read Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the country", simply because erets can be translated as country. The text, particularly the language used by the author(s) offer up the intent of the word used.

Also, Gen 1:1 can (and should) be translated as 'When God began to make the heavens and the earth', since the original Hebrew text contained no vowels.
​

I certainly agree that erets in Genesis 1:2 means the earth. That's my point. That's the reason interpreting erets as anything other than the whole world gained some traction only after the discovery of an impossible world wide flood. The language most definitely makes it clear that the author means the whole earth. If nothing else, it prevents wags asking why all those birds didn't just fly to the next land. Don't even get me started on the fish . . . of the land?

It wasn't the impossibility of a worldwide flood, but discoveries of dictionaries in Ugarit made the language easier to interpret and translate. There's also an understanding that their cosmological view was a tad bit different then than now. There was no 'next land'.
​

No. That would be a strange, uncharacteristic departure in the narrative.

There's nothing that departs from the narrative if you understand how the Ancient Hebrews viewed the 'world'......

​

I agree figurative language is used extensively in the Bible; however, you're the one who wanted a kind of literal reading of the story of Noah.

One person said it HAD to be understood as the 'whole world' (as we know it) and I disagreed and showed the text supports a localized event.​

Genesis 6 17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it.

Note that the heavens there aren't used figuratively, but to emphasise it's all life that existed. The same principle applies in the other verse I quoted previously.

Note the cosmological map I posted above to show what the Ancient Hebrews meant if the verses are taken literally. Their concept of the 'whole world' was pretty much confined to what they could see and travel by walking, which wasn't much compared to now. 'All life under the heavens' wouldn't mean the entire globe since, to them, the world wasn't a globe. The life extinguished would be confined to their observable land directly under 'the heavens'.
​

​

So the deity in that verse recorded it? I mean it had to do something to retrieve the data because "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." Is this the one where the Bible God is supposedly able to see all because it fills "heaven and earth", but somehow misses incidents because it bolsters your argument?

No, the 'entity' misses events because the text says that it isn't watching everything all the time: It had to ask Cain what happened to Abel. It had to look for Adam in the Garden. It had to ask Eve who gave her the fruit. It had to ask A & E who told them they were naked. If you read the text literally rather than figuratively, the 'entity' misses events.​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It's not about proving God created all things. It's about understanding that God created all things. I can show you many things and present them as proof and you can reject them all out of lack of understanding or haughtiness and then we're back to square one. So what is the point in that? You've either been blessed with understanding or you haven't. To see God requires critical thinking and careful analysis. All you're capable of is reading straight facts and repeating them verbatim. Your mind is far from ready to understand God, but one day, God willing.

Prove.

This.

Statement.

I'm in the business of knowing if things are true or not. You're not doing a good job of that.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

A game of semantics means you're more knowledgeable?

I would encourage you to keep researching, especially since your test answer is still blank.

As far as filling the gaps, I will speak for the strawman you're referring to (because you're certainly not referring to me ). Belief in God has never been about filling gaps. It's an umbrella. There will always be gaps, as man will never know every scientific truth. But all scientific truths, known or unknown, fall under the umbrella of God. That doesn't mean don't seek truth. That doesn't mean don't study the universe. What it does mean is that when you make a discovery about the work of God, understand who it is who is responsible for what you've just learned.

My view is not personal feelings and never has it been amended. If it sounds like I'm tying up loose ends then perhaps what I'm saying is indeed truth and it's resonating with your conscience. I can assure you I am no deist, but a monotheist through and through. I worship the God of Abraham. The same God that has been worshiped throughout human history. The God that predates all written word and thus His origins are untraceable. I simply have a firmer understanding than most. I am a true believer.

Now, back to my question... can you explain the origins of life? As I said before, "I don't know" simply means you are guaranteed to be incorrect. At least give yourself a chance.

is god still responsible for lightning strikes?

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Prove.

This.

Statement.

I'm in the business of knowing if things are true or not. You're not doing a good job of that.

Your request doesn't make any sense. Prove that it's about understanding?

Book smarts. No application.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Sun don't move bruh....the planets revolve

The sun rotates dumbass.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You don't know where we came from, you just know where we didn't come from? Sorry, friend, but that makes no sense.

Thats why the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate this.

God is the creator of all and every other answer that has ever been derived is completely laughable. In thousands of years no one has even come up with a single logical alternative.

PROVE IT

I would suggest you drop the "I know where we didn't come from" nonsense and keep searching.

Your "god" answer doesn't ANSWER anything.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Your request doesn't make any sense. Prove that it's about understanding?

Book smarts. No application.

More pseudointellectual babble.

Prove that "god created everything"

If you fail to prove it, it doesn't mean you're wrong, but merely you haven't proven it.

Just like in court. You're never found "innocent," only "not guilty"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The sun does move but from the perspective of the earth.

The earth is the one moving.

Whatever

Dude. What the fukk man?

The sun MOVES.

the solar system MOVES.

EVERYTHING MOVES

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Stop quoting me, breh. Seriously. Like I said your mind is to infantile in regards to the subject. It would take you years, if not decades to catch up.