# What is your justification for believing in a God?

## Recommended Posts

However, you did not ask for proof of the existence of God in your OP. You asked how we justify our belief in God.

No, actually I did not. I did not create this thread, so it was neither my OP nor my question.

Finding God is not like finding Santa Claus.

So you say. I posit that the study of neuroscience and human psychology strongly suggests otherwise.

You know what Santa Claus looks like and you know what you expect to find. Do you know what God looks like and what you expect to find? It's not like Where's Waldo.

Your premise is broken. Children don't need to know what santa claus looks like to believe in him, either. There are plenty of concepts out there which can be demonstrated without clear description or physical form, such as love, sadness, kindness, and cruelty. Why should your concept of god be subject to a double standard and not be asked to satisfy similar requirements?

You've basically just conceded that you cannot describe god in any useful way. As far as I'm concerned, that ends the discussion. You're incapable of supporting your beliefs, and you hold them via illogical, irrational, and unreasonable special pleading.

Now you know how I justify my belief in God. Whether you accept it or not, that is my justification.

Okay. Thanks for sharing.

##### Share on other sites

when looking for god, i ask myself whether the things i experience have a possible hidden meaning, and if so, "what"?

most importantly

Deja Vu

Coincidence

and a term i dubbed sociosynchronis (the moment when two unrelated public conversations seem to share a topic)

or other times when one-thing-seems-more-related-to-another-than-is-common.

##### Share on other sites

No, actually I did not. I did not create this thread, so it was neither my OP nor my question.

You've basically just conceded that you cannot describe god in any useful way. As far as I'm concerned, that ends the discussion. You're incapable of supporting your beliefs, and you hold them via illogical, irrational, and unreasonable special pleading.

Okay. Thanks for sharing.

Sorry, yes of course you did not start the thread, but the OP did request the justification for our belief in God. He did ask for proof for the existence of God and so changed the topic. I have conceded nothing. You just dont like my pushing your metaphor.

Justification. That is a key point. Justify my beliefs to who?

I would say that I need only justify my beliefs to myself, not to you or anyone else. Consequently within the context of the discussion, I have no need to prove or describe anything to you or anyone else. My justification is personal and has nothing to do with you. Ask what it is I tell you. Ask me to prove it, and you are out of bounds. That is another question. I may be willing to answer the one question, but that does not mean I am willing to answer the other. Unwillingness does not equal inability.

One of the first things you realize when you come to terms with the existence of God is that you are not him. The position is taken, and he has his own ideas and plans.

Converting the masses is out of scope for me. Im trying to stay in scope, and not offend God.

##### Share on other sites

Sorry, yes of course you did not start the thread, but the OP did request the justification for our belief in God. He did ask for proof for the existence of God and so changed the topic. I have conceded nothing. You just dont like my pushing your metaphor.

Fair enough. Concession implies intentionality. What I should have said is that you implicitly stipulated that your belief (and the subject of your belief) is untenable when you acknowledged the inability to define it in a way which carries any utility.

My justification is personal and has nothing to do with you. Ask what it is I tell you. Ask me to prove it, and you are out of bounds.

Not on a science forum.

That is another question. I may be willing to answer the one question, but that does not mean I am willing to answer the other. Unwillingness does not equal inability.

Then really what's the point of participating on a discussion forum? You say you're willing to assert things, then people ask you to justify the things you assert. You then claim you are unwilling, but not unable, to support those assertions. Really, what's the point? If you're going to assert it, and someone asks for justification, and you claim you are able to justify, then why not do so?

It makes you look like you're lying when you say you are able to justify the existence of a concept which is entirely likely not to exist... but I'm all ears. People have been trying to do exactly that for millenia, and have failed on every try. I welcome you showing all of us how you've been successful in proving the existence of a non-ambiguously defined god.

Converting the masses is out of scope for me. Im trying to stay in scope, and not offend God.

Nobody has asked you to convert the masses. Stop trying to move the goal posts. You are merely being asked to share what informs your certainty beyond faith alone. The only remaining thing I can think of would be delusion, and I'm rather confident that's not what you had in mind. Help me understand your position. Help others who have been reading this thread. You seem like you are willing, but I reckon you're unable. You just said you are able, so prove it.

##### Share on other sites

i cannot believe, given the history of its creation, that the bible is an invaluable tool for discerning the truth about religion.

the old testament was written by Jews to overt the religious prosecution of their people by the Roman Empire.

while the stories told may be true and accurate, they were SELECTED by a people who wanted to show their dedication. not by a people searching for truth.

The New testament was written later, many of its books were omitted.

. . .

even if it were all a COMPLETE and direct account of events -handwritten by Jesus-,

it was still translated from spoken Armenian to written Hebrew to Latin to Old English. and now, brainteaserfan, you want to use the NIV version?

is that a good secondary source?

do you know all of those men personally? those translators? were they, indeed, intent on preserving the truth? all of them? and did they, themselves, understand the parables which Jesus spoke in?

There are many scientific proofs that the bible is reliable, and should be trusted. And that it is actually the word of God to man.

Knowing for example that Satan is the ruler of the world, that means he is in control of governments and religions. That is going to be difficult to find the answers. And of cousre , the attitude of the searcher. Some do not want a God casued , answer. ( they then are not accountable,then can live the way they want)

##### Share on other sites

There are many scientific proofs that the bible is reliable, and should be trusted.

Thanks for the laugh...

##### Share on other sites

Thanks for the laugh...

Poor old Isaac Newton, some laugh at him :

(Sir Isaac Newton once said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." (Two Apologies, by R. Watson, London, 1820, p. 57)

Excavations in and around the ancient city of Babylon have revealed the sites of several ziggurats, or pyramidlike, staged temple-towers, including the ruined temple of Etemenanki inside Babylon's walls.

Records and inscriptions found concerning such temples often contain the words, "Its top shall reach the heavens," and King Nebuchadnezzar is recorded as saying: "I raised the summit of the Tower of stages at Etemenanki so that its top rivalled the heavens." One fragment found N of the temple of Marduk in Babylon related the fall of such a ziggurat in these words: "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded." (Bible and Spade, by S. L. Caiger, 1938, p. 29) The ziggurat located at Uruk (Biblical Erech) was found to be built with clay, bricks, and asphalt.—Compare Ge 11:1-9.

Genesis 11:1-9

New International Version (NIV)

Genesis 11

The Tower of Babel

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.

3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth

This say's exatly what the clay tablets found, said.

Edited by deluxe

##### Share on other sites

There are certainly parts of the bible that accurately depict history. There is not one word in the bible penned by any God or any alleged son called Jesus. It is a book written by man and it proves nothing about the existence of any god, especially scientifically. There exists ZERO scientific evidence that any deities exist!

Edited by doG

##### Share on other sites

There are certainly parts of the bible that accurately depict history. There is not one word in the bible penned by any God or any alleged son called Jesus. It is a book written by man and it proves nothing about the existence of any god, especially scientifically. There exists ZERO scientific evidence that any deities exist!

As for the bible , it has one theme the first prophecy is revealed and answered in Revelation the last book. I was written over a 1500 year time span by 39 different writers and is in harmony with itself. The numerous prophecies all come true ( now with just s a very few remaining. ) Archeology, the science on creation, and historians , all confirms, the bible is accurate and correct. The scientists have for the last 150 years or so, tried to say creation is not needed for the the life and universe we see, but in effect, because they can't not show they are right, have really supported creation and a God. Man needs a God , people for generations have worshiped Gods. If they don't know who he is, they make up some for themselves. Even 'evolution' is only an idea that no one has seen or can show actually happens. Also humans have talents that have nothing to do with 'evolution'. If you are a human you will always only have human children. There are no almost humans, or humans that are no longer human.

Science and the bible are in harmony with each other. Science and creation are the same thing., you can't separate them.

The bible claims to be from God, and is inspired of God. Now that is not a proof in itself, but If a writing is from God it should at least claim it is.

So how can there be any question?

##### Share on other sites

You need to research bible contradictions. It is far from being in harmony with itself. It is a mixture of history and mythological fiction. It is not evidence of anything but man's ability to write stories.

##### Share on other sites

You need to research bible contradictions.

and a good dose of smelling salts first.

##### Share on other sites

You need to research bible contradictions. It is far from being in harmony with itself. It is a mixture of history and mythological fiction. It is not evidence of anything but man's ability to write stories.

Question: Acts 1:18 This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out.

According to Matthew 27:5, Judas hanged himself. But Acts 1:18 says, "pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out." Matthew deals with the mode of the attempted suicide, while Acts describes the result. Combining the two accounts, it shows that Judas tried to hang himself over some cliff, but the rope or tree limb broke so that he plunged down and burst open on the rocks below. The topography around Jerusalem makes such an event conceivable. Also the idea that you just fall in a field, and noisily burst, open his intestines, is unlikely ,it was more likely, a fall of some distance.

Question: What about Judas, brother of James? Is he normally counted among the Apostles? If so, why don't Matthew and Mark mention him? And why don't Luke and John mention Thaddaeus?

I mean sure, the four Gospels are supposed to have been written by different people, and different people have different recollections, but this is supposed to be a divinely inspired book!

One of the 12 apostles, also called Thaddaeus and "Judas the son of James." In the listings of the apostles in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18, James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus are linked together. In the listings at Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 Thaddaeus is not included; instead we find "Judas the son of James," leading to the conclusion that Thaddaeus is another name for the apostle Judas. The possibility of confusing two apostles named Judas might be a reason why the name Thaddaeus is sometimes used. Some translators render Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, "Judas the brother of James," since the Greek does not give the exact relationship. But the Syriac does supply the word "son." Consequently, numerous modern translations read "Judas the son of James." (RS, AT, NW, La) The only Biblical reference to Judas alone is at John 14:22. This verse refers to him as "Judas, not Iscariot," thus providing a means of distinguishing which Judas spoke.

There are many so called 'contradiction's ' floating around the internet. These are from people who do not really know what the bible says. So beware where you are getting them from.

The more an more I have looked these up and found answers the more I have justification for believing in a God and the bible.

Scientists could never stand up to anything like this, when questioned on their interpretations.

Edited by deluxe

##### Share on other sites

Deluxe, you are a living example of how God makes all things possible with faith.

No doubt you believe 'Heli was the father of Joseph' (Luke 3:23) and 'Jacob was the father of Joseph' (Matthew 1:16) are perfectly consistent. Or, that the 28 generations between King David and Jesus in Matthew 1 fit the 43 generations between King David and Jesus in Luke 3. Without even leaving the first chapter of the first book of the new testament these examples of contradictions are obvious to any rational human, but I know from experience that you cannot see them that way.

Believe me, I understand your thinking. I used to share it... If heaven, earth, logic, and literal meaning must be set aside so that scripture remains consistent and your denomination remains correct then it is a small matter to move them. And I honestly think that is fine. You are a free-thinking human and if you care to harbor irrational thoughts concerning a protestant version of a Christian interpretation of some ancient Jewish manuscripts then so be it.

But, you went some ways beyond that and decided to assert their truth on a science forum. More than that, you insult the scholarship that exists on the subject. Substantial literary and historical work has been done by both secular and religious experts establishing not only which parts of the bible are contradictory, but what the nature of the contradictions themselves tell us about the text being written. You can google "documentary hypothesis" to see what I mean about that.

In any case, there is no point in arguing. I'm sure that whatever argument you might make so that 'Joseph + Father = Heli' and 'Joseph + Father = Jacob' are consistent would transcend argument to the contrary... just like how math would do nothing to persuade you against the idea that '1+1=2' and '1+1=3' are inconsistent if your faith led you to believe such a thing.

Truly, with you God makes all things possible... so why wouldn't it be possible that 'Joseph + Father = Heli' rationally compliments 'Joseph + Father = Jacob' or that '1 + 1 = 2' rationally compliments '1 + 1 = 3'? These are small trivialities compared to one's impression of a book written by the infallible creator of all existence.

Edited by Iggy

##### Share on other sites

Deluxe, you are a living example of how God makes all things possible with faith.

No doubt you believe 'Heli was the father of Joseph' (Luke 3:23) and 'Jacob was the father of Joseph' (Matthew 1:16) are perfectly consistent. Or, that the 28 generations between King David and Jesus in Matthew 1 fit the 43 generations between King David and Jesus in Luke 3. Without even leaving the first chapter of the first book of the new testament these examples of contradictions are obvious to any rational human, but I know from experience that you cannot see them that way.

Believe me, I understand your thinking. I used to share it... If heaven, earth, logic, and literal meaning must be set aside so that scripture remains consistent and your denomination remains correct then it is a small matter to move them. And I honestly think that is fine. You are a free-thinking human and if you care to harbor irrational thoughts concerning a protestant version of a Christian interpretation of some ancient Jewish manuscripts then so be it.

But, you went some ways beyond that and decided to assert their truth on a science forum. More than that, you insult the scholarship that exists on the subject. Substantial literary and historical work has been done by both secular and religious experts establishing not only which parts of the bible are contradictory, but what the nature of the contradictions themselves tell us about the text being written. You can google "documentary hypothesis" to see what I mean about that.

In any case, there is no point in arguing. I'm sure that whatever argument you might make so that 'Joseph + Father = Heli' and 'Joseph + Father = Jacob' are consistent would transcend argument to the contrary... just like how math would do nothing to persuade you against the idea that '1+1=2' and '1+1=3' are inconsistent if your faith led you to believe such a thing.

Truly, with you God makes all things possible... so why wouldn't it be possible that 'Joseph + Father = Heli' rationally compliments 'Joseph + Father = Jacob' or that '1 + 1 = 2' rationally compliments '1 + 1 = 3'? These are small trivialities compared to one's impression of a book written by the infallible creator of all existence.

Yes these are small trivialities. But in a way very telling. The scientific community, looks for even the smallest irregularity, to discredit God, and his word. After all they think the bible should be perfect. They then think that anyone that believes in the bible should be perfect also. ( should know everything)

Of course they don't put that burden on themselves. If they used the 'scientific method" of proving first then say what that proof is, they should have the same burden.

So what they have really done is to expect God and the followers of God to have a much higher standard than themselves. That is interesting!!

The other thing is when I have to do research about some of these small trivialities, and when I find answers, it amazes me how detailed and accurate the information is, that God gave us. That instills incredible confidence in his word and in a God. To the the point that this is an absolute truth. This is not emotion this is based on many many little and large facts. ( evidence). I don't pretend to be smarter than the scientists, I don't need to be. I just go to where the the best answers are found.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20

New International Version (NIV)

18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become "fools" so that you may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[a]; 20 and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."[b]

This is so true.

Though I do understand that scientific minded people need scientific answers. I did too.

Edited by deluxe

##### Share on other sites

Yes these are small trivialities. But in a way very telling. The scientific community, looks for even the smallest irregularity, to discredit God, and his word. After all they think the bible should be perfect. They then think that anyone that believes in the bible should be perfect also. ( should know everything)

Of course they don't put that burden on themselves. If they used the 'scientific method" of proving first then say what that proof is, they should have the same burden.

So what they have really done is to expect God and the followers of God to have a much higher standard than themselves. That is interesting!!

The other thing is when I have to do research about some of these small trivialities, and when I find answers, it amazes me how detailed and accurate the information is, that God gave us. That instills incredible confidence in his word and in a God. To the the point that this is an absolute truth. This is not emotion this is based on many many little and large facts. ( evidence). I don't pretend to be smarter than the scientists, I don't need to be. I just go to where the the best answers are found.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20

New International Version (NIV)

18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become "fools" so that you may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[a]; 20 and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."[b]

This is so true.

Though I do understand that scientific minded people need scientific answers. I did too.

That's beautiful preaching. You should write sermons!

I couldn't tell - were you conceding that the Bible contradicts itself? It may be that you answered, but I couldn't find it amidst the beautiful preaching surrounding it. The preaching was so beautiful, in fact, that it strung my heart to the point of making me nauseous, so I may have missed your answer while your preaching was inspiring a gut-wrenching feeling... an expulsion-of-the-gut-wrenching feeling to be perfectly honest.

##### Share on other sites

That's beautiful preaching. You should write sermons!

I couldn't tell - were you conceding that the Bible contradicts itself? It may be that you answered, but I couldn't find it amidst the beautiful preaching surrounding it. The preaching was so beautiful, in fact, that it strung my heart to the point of making me nauseous, so I may have missed your answer while your preaching was inspiring a gut-wrenching feeling... an expulsion-of-the-gut-wrenching feeling to be perfectly honest.

I talk to allot of people about the bible and science . I am not very good at public speaking. I am better at this, because I give myself time to research or think about what I say.

The bible is in harmony with itself. That is the incredible thing about this. Written over 1500 years by 39 different writers, and yet the bible is in harmony with itself, man is not able to do this. ( this is not just made up stuff)

The genius of the bible is that it interprets itself, that is why the bible says there is one interpretation and it is from God. He interpreted it for us. But to get the people of science to trust the bible you have to prove that scientifically it is accurate.

I don't know of any contradictions in the bible. i have answered many of the so called 'contradictions' found on the internet, and have been able to answer all that I have been asked . So far I don't know of any.

One other thing. If a scientists talks about the science , is that preaching?

##### Share on other sites

I talk to allot of people about the bible and science . I am not very good at public speaking. I am better at this, because I give myself time to research or think about what I say.

Better in the forum than in person?. That is sure something.

The bible is in harmony with itself. That is the incredible thing about this. Written over 1500 years by 39 different writers, and yet the bible is in harmony with itself, man is not able to do this. ( this is not just made up stuff)

I wouldn't lie -- I'm quite serious when I say that your preaching would stand up to any Falwell or Hugh Hewitt. I'm not sure I could explain it, but if I had to I'd say that there is an affinity that evangelism has with gratuitous audacity and your firm grasp of the latter gives you a seemingly effortless ability with the former.

Do you preach the Word on a lot of forums or just this one?

The genius of the bible is that it interprets itself, that is why the bible says there is one interpretation and it is from God. He interpreted it for us.

Where does it say that? I'm reminded of Timothy saying that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God, but that's as close as my mind takes me.

Also, which denomination follows the bible's interpretation of itself? Let me guess -- it's Jehovah's Witness, isn't it?

But to get the people of science to trust the bible you have to prove that scientifically it is accurate.

I admit that this is hard. Try to tell a scientist that pi = 3 because I Kings 7:23 says so and they are nothing but skeptical. They say that 3.14159(...) works better, but it's just like the way biologists reject talking snakes. They ignore the obvious truth because they are brainwashed by evidence.

I don't know of any contradictions in the bible. i have answered many of the so called 'contradictions' found on the internet, and have been able to answer all that I have been asked . So far I don't know of any.

And I thought you said you've only answered two. Be that the case or not, I gave two more in post 138.

One other thing. If a scientists talks about the science , is that preaching?

Should I lump all instances of "talking about science" together or just say that it is not necessarily not preaching to talk science (i.e. it is indeed possible to preach science). "Science" is the name we give to a body of information. Any information can be preached. Would you like me to preach some science to you?

Actually, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that. I would feel like a conceited dogmatist ignoring the scientific method on a science forum of all places and I would feel like I'm demeaning your intelligence by assuming you needed things preached at you rather than relayed directly.

No, very uncomfortable with that approach -- like I needed a shower afterward -- I'm sure I'd feel.

Edited by Iggy

##### Share on other sites

iggy

I'm Ok one on one, I freeze at public speaking.

I don't do very many of these forums now. I check once and a while to see if the science minded people have learned anything yet.

I wonder why a Science forum, has sections on religion? Are they open to the religious minded people to give , their take on science and creation? As an equal voice, with as much support as the scientists say they have with the evidence found. Or is it designed to scoff at religion and their silly ideas , with audacity, of someone that thinks they are standing, with superior learning and intellect, while they play with the bug.

But it seems when the tables are turned there is a confusion of not knowing how to handle it. But when that is passed, look at the evidence. What does it really say!

Maybe one might take a quick look. Even though he maybe ashamed at doing so. There is more to gain than one can imagine.

About interpretation. The interpretation is God's.

2 Peter 1:20-21

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

I do not promote any particular religion on these forums. I do promote the bible, and the science.

As for the contradictions, I said I have answered many of them, but I gave just 2 as examples here. I just took the first 2 that were on my list.

Don't feel bad about preaching science to me, if you believe that your interpretation of the science found is correct then tell me. But I will demand that the evidence be there also., not just the interpretation. After all I have been shown the science from the scientists.

##### Share on other sites

The genius of the bible is that it interprets itself, that is why the bible says there is one interpretation and it is from God. He interpreted it for us.

Where does it say that?

2 Peter 1:20-21

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Nope -- it doesn't say it there.

You misunderstand 2 Peter 1:20-21. It isn't talking about the reader's interpretation of the bible, but the author's influence in writing it. This isn't very apparent in the "New American Standard Bible", but it is more so in the NIV:

20
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.
21
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

If the different translations befuddle you, you can consider the original Greek which uses the word "γίνομαι" which means "to arise" or "to come about". In other words, biblical prophecy came about not by the interpretation of the prophet, but by the influence of God. This is strikingly different from your original statement which has to do with the bible interpreting itself for the reader.

I don't expect you to retract or revisit your statement or to try again at answering my question of it.

I don't do very many of these forums now. I check once and a while to see if the science minded people have learned anything yet.

'Science types' are so awful at learning. May I suggest, like you say, that you leave the thread and the forum for a long while and return at some future point and see if we learned anything...?

I wonder why a Science forum, has sections on religion?

Let me guess -- it has never occurred to you that theology and religion are appropriate topics of scientific inquiry? Religion, for you, is something to be preached (not studied scientifically). Bibles are something to be thumped (not investigated empirically). Is that about right?

Or is it designed to scoff at religion and their silly ideas , with audacity, of someone that thinks they are standing, with superior learning and intellect, while they play with the bug.

I won't argue that scoffing and audacity is afoot.

But when that is passed, look at the evidence. What does it really say!

Maybe one might take a quick look. Even though he maybe ashamed at doing so. There is more to gain than one can imagine.

Speaking of looking at evidence, did you get the examples of biblical contradictions I supplied? Nothing to say on that account?

Believe me, it would not be on your account that I felt bad preaching. The act itself would make me feel dirty and nauseated because it is a dogmatic and conceited form of communication. I would feel quite despicable if I viewed any of humanity so low that I felt the need to preach at them -- not you in particular.

Edited by Iggy

##### Share on other sites

It's a "miracle" to commonly focus on a unified purpose/style/etc., over the course of thousands of years? Was this unity in motive supposed to spread from OT to NT? If it's such a miracle, how come it took so long for everyone to get with the program? How is choosing the difference between right and wrong such a miracle? Law and order vs. death and chaos, doesn't sound like such an amazing, inspiring revelation to me, but to each his own. What about the infinitely more mistakes that people made? Convenient, how they all got left out of the story.

##### Share on other sites

Nobody has asked you to convert the masses.

If I prove to the OP here and now that God exists, I will then prove it to anyone who reads this thread. Each will be so astounded and moved that they will forward the proof to others. Then masses will be converted. You really need to reason things through.

##### Share on other sites

Nope -- it doesn't say it there.

You misunderstand 2 Peter 1:20-21. It isn't talking about the reader's interpretation of the bible, but the author's influence in writing it. This isn't very apparent in the "New American Standard Bible", but it is more so in the NIV:

20
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.
21
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

If the different translations befuddle you, you can consider the original Greek which uses the word "γίνομαι" which means "to arise" or "to come about". In other words, biblical prophecy came about not by the interpretation of the prophet, but by the influence of God. This is strikingly different from your original statement which has to do with the bible interpreting itself for the reader.

I don't expect you to retract or revisit your statement or to try again at answering my question of it.

'Science types' are so awful at learning. May I suggest, like you say, that you leave the thread and the forum for a long while and return at some future point and see if we learned anything...?

Let me guess -- it has never occurred to you that theology and religion are appropriate topics of scientific inquiry? Religion, for you, is something to be preached (not studied scientifically). Bibles are something to be thumped (not investigated empirically). Is that about right?

I won't argue that scoffing and audacity is afoot.

Speaking of looking at evidence, did you get the examples of biblical contradictions I supplied? Nothing to say on that account?

Believe me, it would not be on your account that I felt bad preaching. The act itself would make me feel dirty and nauseated because it is a dogmatic and conceited form of communication. I would feel quite despicable if I viewed any of humanity so low that I felt the need to preach at them -- not you in particular.

Iggy, you don't have the complete understanding of that verse. ( so I don't need to retract it )

Here is is an example where men in the bible explained occurrences in the case of Egypt's magic-practicing priests and wise men were helpless when it came to interpreting Pharaoh's God-sent dreams. "There was no interpreter of them for Pharaoh." (Ge 41:1-8) It was then brought to Pharaoh's attention that Joseph had successfully interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh's chief cupbearer and chief baker. (Ge 40:5-22; 41:9-13) However, in that connection Joseph had taken no credit to himself but had called their attention to God as the Interpreter of dreams, saying, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Ge 40:8) So when called before Pharaoh to interpret the king's dream, Joseph declared: "I need not be considered! God will announce welfare to Pharaoh." (Ge 41:14-16) After hearing the interpretation, even Pharaoh acknowledged Joseph to be "one in whom the spirit of God" was found, for "God has caused you [Joseph] to know all this."—Ge 41:38, 39.

So in this case God did the interpretation for man. So this supports 2 Peter. So this shows God gave the dream but it wasn't man who interpreted it , it was God. So this is telling us that God gave us his word but he also interprets it to us. So both of these accounts are in harmony. we get more information for the other scriptures.

Now what about today? Does God interpret the scriptures for us today. I said the bible interprets itself. And that is true. And here is how.

In Daniel

Daniel 12:4-5

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even to the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

Here in Daniel God tells us , that the knowledge will be increased. What this is saying is that , at a certain time in the future the knowledge of the bible will be understood.

There are no new writings it is still the bible. But the understanding of the bible will be increased. at that time ( time of the end)

Now the bible has been the same for centuries, so what makes the difference? God opens up this knowledge. He does the interpretation. So the bible interprets itself. This information has always been in the bible, but God lets us see his interpretation for us.

Now the little example we have just done here, shows that if you read and consider all the bible ,different scriptures will add the information until you get Gods interpretation. The bible interprets itself. This also supports 2 Peter. So God had the bible written so that he could give his interpretation to his followers when needed. Yet the bible is the same, as the early days of Christianity.

Edited by deluxe

##### Share on other sites

If I prove to the OP here and now that God exists, I will then prove it to anyone who reads this thread. Each will be so astounded and moved that they will forward the proof to others. Then masses will be converted. You really need to reason things through.

I welcome the opportunity to watch you take this from its current state of being a rather shallow baseless assertion and transform it into an empirically supported fact. You continue to suggest you are able to prove god exists, and yet with each post you do little more than waffle around repeating yourself instead of simply doing it. I wonder why that is.

##### Share on other sites

It's a "miracle" to commonly focus on a unified purpose/style/etc., over the course of thousands of years? Was this unity in motive supposed to spread from OT to NT? If it's such a miracle, how come it took so long for everyone to get with the program? How is choosing the difference between right and wrong such a miracle? Law and order vs. death and chaos, doesn't sound like such an amazing, inspiring revelation to me, but to each his own. What about the infinitely more mistakes that people made? Convenient, how they all got left out of the story.

The bible is really one book. Some religions have called it OT and NT, but that is not correct. The writings before Jesus were all leading up until he came. They also talks about and gave example of the second coming of Jesus. It really is one book all in harmony with itself.

The reason people in are not with the 'program' is that this world is controlled by Satan. Satan's only purpose is to mislead people away from God. He is very successful at that. The scientists are just one of many distractions.

If I prove to the OP here and now that God exists, I will then prove it to anyone who reads this thread. Each will be so astounded and moved that they will forward the proof to others. Then masses will be converted. You really need to reason things through.

There will be no mass conversion. The bible says very few will find the right way to go.

Deluxe, you are a living example of how God makes all things possible with faith.

No doubt you believe 'Heli was the father of Joseph' (Luke 3:23) and 'Jacob was the father of Joseph' (Matthew 1:16) are perfectly consistent. Or, that the 28 generations between King David and Jesus in Matthew 1 fit the 43 generations between King David and Jesus in Luke 3. Without even leaving the first chapter of the first book of the new testament these examples of contradictions are obvious to any rational human, but I know from experience that you cannot see them that way.

Believe me, I understand your thinking. I used to share it... If heaven, earth, logic, and literal meaning must be set aside so that scripture remains consistent and your denomination remains correct then it is a small matter to move them. And I honestly think that is fine. You are a free-thinking human and if you care to harbor irrational thoughts concerning a protestant version of a Christian interpretation of some ancient Jewish manuscripts then so be it.

But, you went some ways beyond that and decided to assert their truth on a science forum. More than that, you insult the scholarship that exists on the subject. Substantial literary and historical work has been done by both secular and religious experts establishing not only which parts of the bible are contradictory, but what the nature of the contradictions themselves tell us about the text being written. You can google "documentary hypothesis" to see what I mean about that.

In any case, there is no point in arguing. I'm sure that whatever argument you might make so that 'Joseph + Father = Heli' and 'Joseph + Father = Jacob' are consistent would transcend argument to the contrary... just like how math would do nothing to persuade you against the idea that '1+1=2' and '1+1=3' are inconsistent if your faith led you to believe such a thing.

Truly, with you God makes all things possible... so why wouldn't it be possible that 'Joseph + Father = Heli' rationally compliments 'Joseph + Father = Jacob' or that '1 + 1 = 2' rationally compliments '1 + 1 = 3'? These are small trivialities compared to one's impression of a book written by the infallible creator of all existence.

Hi Iggy Sorry I missed this the first time

What was the name of Jesus' paternal grandfather?

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus' natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus' actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli."—Lu 3:23.

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke's genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—

1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus;

2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ["The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant"]' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)."—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

I hope this helps.

Edited by deluxe

##### Share on other sites

"Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Ge 40:8)

That is closer to what you said.

The rest of that post is worthless preaching. You sound like a parishioner leading a sunday school class. I wonder if that's how you talk in real life.

Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus' natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father.

No, Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli, not Mary. Care to try again?

## Create an account

Register a new account