Why Didn't God Write the Bible?

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 110
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

For one thing, He is a necessary Being, and since He is necessary He has provided many infallible proofs both in His written revelation (the Bible) and through what He has created (the universe). From His word (the biblical revelation).we see God predicting the future before it happens. If it reasonable to believe these writings were BEFORE the events they predict in history? I believe that any reasonable and logical person would agree they are. Is it reasonable to believe Jesus Christ was a historical Person? I believe it is reasonable and logical to believe He is. Is it reasonable and logical to believe He rose from the dead? I believe it is reasonable and logical to believe it is so. Is it reasonable to believe the biblical texts are a unity in their teachings? I believe it is most reasonable. Is it reasonable to believe that there is a picture/shadow/type of Jesus on almost every page of the OT? I believe most reasonable, and I can document all these things. Is it reasonable and logical to believe other religious views contradict the biblical revelation and do not supply the level of proof the Bible does? I believe it is most reasonable and logical to believe.  
Now apply this sentence to the above
You are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true? 
And you have refuted your own argument if you were honest enough to admit it.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
There is very little if any history in the bible. Just to reiterate the bible is the claim it is not evidence.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
Go over there are challenge it if you wish
There's nothing to challenge. Prophecies are baloney, they talk about things that happen all the time; wars, earthquakes, etc. Also, most claimed prophecies were written after the events happened, not before. You've been fooled.

You are displaying your biblical illiteracy. Pay attention to the relevant audience of address. The wars, famines, earthquakes apply to 1st-century
Israel; the Jewish people of that time. 

As for your claim that prophecies were written after the events happened, that is not logically consistent with the information/data/evidence we have available from the period. Show me any early writing that states as much. If you look at the internal evidence from the NT there is not one mention of an already destroyed city or temple? Do you know how significant that would be to a people whose very existence revolved around an OT economy and worship system?  Again, find any early writings that say these NT manuscripts (the originals) were written after the fact. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Infanticide cannot be construed by a rational, logical being as punishing evil. You claim to be such a being but your beliefs put the lie to that. Why should I believe a word you say, you are neither rational nor logical nor honest?

The evil was done by the parents.

God judged the parents. What counts is eternal life and little children, we are told by Jesus belong in His kingdom. He rescues them from spiritual death. 

FACT: We all die physically, in that our bodies cease to function. The Bible is concerned with our relationship (or lack of) with God. 

I do not claim to be such a being as God. I claim I can know because God has revealed, otherwise, I would be in the same boat as you.

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
For one thing, He is a necessary Being, and since He is necessary He has provided many infallible proofs both in His written revelation (the Bible) and through what He has created (the universe). From His word (the biblical revelation).we see God predicting the future before it happens. If it reasonable to believe these writings were BEFORE the events they predict in history? I believe that any reasonable and logical person would agree they are. Is it reasonable to believe Jesus Christ was a historical Person? I believe it is reasonable and logical to believe He is. Is it reasonable and logical to believe He rose from the dead? I believe it is reasonable and logical to believe it is so. Is it reasonable to believe the biblical texts are a unity in their teachings? I believe it is most reasonable. Is it reasonable to believe that there is a picture/shadow/type of Jesus on almost every page of the OT? I believe most reasonable, and I can document all these things. Is it reasonable and logical to believe other religious views contradict the biblical revelation and do not supply the level of proof the Bible does? I believe it is most reasonable and logical to believe.  
Now apply this sentence to the above

In what way?


You are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true? 
And you have refuted your own argument if you were honest enough to admit it.

No, again this is fallacious because it is not necessarily true. I have what is necessary for truth if God exists and has revealed Himself to humanity. Your belief does not. It has no omniscient being through which you can derive truth from. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
There is very little if any history in the bible. Just to reiterate the bible is the claim it is not evidence.
This is a claim/assertion that I challenge you to prove. Back up your statement. Anyone can make any claim as if it is true when it is the furthest thing from the truth. 

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
And that is all you do, make unsupportable claims.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You, a mere human claims to know the truth, but you are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true? 

Your argument is defeated by your argument.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The wars, famines, earthquakes apply to 1st-century
Israel; the Jewish people of that time. 


Don't be ridiculous, wars, famines, and earthquakes happened all the time.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
"The evil was done by the parents."
So your vindictive, petty, hateful gods kills infants and is proud of it. Does he object to abortion because he wants the monopoly? He prefers to perform it on women who want a baby, what a pissant god.

"FACT: We all die physically,"
Fact we all die placing a qualification on that is superflous, there is no other way to die. If you wish to claim there is then prove it.

"I claim I can know because God has revealed,"
You claim to know because a man has told you god has revealed, but you are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true? 
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Supply evidence of the Jews being enslaved for 400yrs by the Egyptians.
Supply evidence that 4million people wandered around the Sinai for 40yrs
Supply evidence that there was ever a world wide flood deeper than Everest is high.
As I said there is very little if any history in the bible.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
Not only has any theist been able to answer this question with any sanity, they can't even support their claims that men were inspired by God. We can see how many of them fantasize about God in their own way, so it would stand to reason the authors of the Bible were very much like theists today, ignorant of the world around them with all their answers revolving around magic and delusion.

The Bible is the word of con men, and not very bright  or convincing men, much like the theists here.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
If there is no necessary being then life originated from something non-living, something without consciousness. Show me how that is possible.

I don't know how or why life originated but that doesn't mean we accept an unproven and unprovable proposition. That would be an argument from ignorance, that is saying I can't think of another explanation therefore this is true. If the answer is I don't know then you don't have the answer you don't get to just make one up.

If you "don't know" that is exactly what you are doing; you accept an unprovable. Can you prove life originated from the non-living? If not, you are arguing from ignorance. 

I asked you which was more REASONABLE and LOGICAL - life from the living or live from the non-living?

Is it more reasonable to believe that conscious being comes from something devoid of consciousness? If so, then show me where you EVER witness something living coming from the non-living or something without consciousness giving rise to something with consciousness. You can't. You presuppose it can. Then, from that presupposition, you look for evidence that confirms that presupposition and you ignore that which does not. 

But the point is that it is not reasonable or logical. Reason and logic require being. 
****

Why would you expect to find reason, logic, meaning in a meaningless universe? 

Can you demonstrate that the universe has any meaning besides that which we assign to it? As for logic and reason, these are just methods of thought which have been shown to have results and only because the universe tends to behave in an observable predictable way. That does not necessitate a guiding force. Gravity would still pull mass towards mass whether it is directed by a consciousness or if it is just an emergent quality of mass. That gravity exists, therefore, does not demonstrate a conscious guiding force. This is true of existence of the universe in general. The universe does exist but that in and of itself is not evidence that ideas created rather than simply existing.


How could we assign meaning to the universe unless there was meaning there?
How do you assign meaning to the meaningless?
Why does a random, chance universe "BEHAVE" and why in a predictable way? 

Without intent there is no REASON anything would act or "behave" in a particular way. There is no REASON for uniformity of nature in a random, chance, chaotic universe. You ascribe human or personal traits such as behavior to something devoid of personality. To non-personal nature, things just happen for no reason. 

Why would gravity work in the manner it does? Why can we derive a formula for how gravity works? A mathematical formula requires intentional being.

2+2=4 is a necessary law of mathematics (addition). It means nothing without mindful beings. There is no meaning without mindful, thinking logical beings. How can you derive meaning from the meaningless? So, was there ever a time when 2+2 did not equal 4? If so, then what did it equal? So that is a necessary law that we discover. We discover it by our minds yet it does not depend on your mind, nor my mind or any other non-necessary mind.

You assume that these mathematical laws, such as gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation), or the laws of thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics), or special relativity (E=mc2), that we discover can exist outside of mindful being, and a necessary mind at that. Your mind is not necessary for gravity. Why do we discover these laws in a mindless universe? The question it raises to my mind is, "Who put them here?"

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Some things can be thought of in theory, yet they are not possible to demonstrate in practice.

I agree with This one hundred percent. Some things are impossible to demonstrate. In such cases it is beyond our epistemological limits to say with certainty that they are true or false. 


How can you either make sense of or be sure of origins then?



without fixing it in any way one million times in a row. 


The chances of rolling six one million times in a row is astronomical but really so are the chances of rolling any specific combination of numbers. Regardless of what numbers come up on your dice the chances of that specific combination are still six million to one against and yet if you roll a dice six million times you will get a specific combination of numbers.
With the anthropomorphic principle multiple the chance billions of times over with a myriad of things. And what is "chance"? It is a word we use to describe probability. It has no ability in itself.  


There are various meaning assigned to words. Let's make sure we are not using equivocation when we speak of 'chance.'. 

[1] Chance: the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design; do something by accident or without design,

NOT

[2] Chance: The probability of something desirable happening.

Probability: the extent to which something is probable; the likelihood of something happening or being the case

What is 'chance' in the causal example [1]? Does it exist? How much does chance influence the probability of six happening one million times in a row? It does not influence the outcome one bit. It has NO POWER to do anything. Chance is NOTHING - no thing.
You confuse the concept of probability with causal power.


How can you know certainty without a necessary all-knowing being?

Complete certainty about anything would seem to be beyond humans. Our experience is just too limited and subjective.


Are you SURE of that? If so, then you have complete certainty of at least one thing. If not, then your statement is self-refuting. It refutes its own terms of validity. 


What is the truth? Do you have it in regards to origins?

Nope and neither do you, or at least you seem unable to demonstrate this truth.


Nope? Is that true? If you do not have the truth how can you know I do not have it? Your answer is self-refuting. It commits a logical fallacy. If you don't know then how do you know my position is untrue? I can make sense of origins. You can't. For instance, how does non-living matter result in living conscious being? I can make sense of that. From a self-existent, living, conscious being come other dependent, living, conscious beings.  
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Goldtop



Not only has any theist been able to answer this question with any sanity, they can't even support their claims that men were inspired by God. We can see how many of them fantasize about God in their own way, so it would stand to reason the authors of the Bible were very much like theists today, ignorant of the world around them with all their answers revolving around magic and delusion.

The Bible is the word of con men, and not very bright  or convincing men, much like the theists here.


I don't think this is the case when God is The Ultimate Reality, not merely what people think The Ultimate Reality is.


Maybe you are right there in the mud too.

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
By the impossibility of the contrary. 

That makes no sense at all.

Show me how it is possible for life to come from inorganic, non-living matter. Many things can be believed but not everything can be demonstrated, especially with logic or reason. 

Show me how that is possible. Show me it is reasonable to believe
That's the answer scientists are working on, it's called abiogenesis. You need to understand it before you can believe it. But then, there's no reason to believe it if you understand it.

That doesn't show me anything.

Abiogenesis: the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances

Show me abiogenesis happening. Show me where it has ever happened without bringing all kinds of presuppositions into the equation. 

THERE IS NO REASON.
There doesn't have to be reason for the universe to exist. it just exists as do we. This is simple to understand. Is there a reason for mosquitoes? Why then do they exist? Answer, they just do exist.

That is what is called a tautology. It says nothing. 

Tautology: the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession).

It just exists because it exists? What kind of proof is that?


It has NO ABILITY to do anything. Intentional beings have abilities to do things. 
But, the laws of nature can do things, as we can see in nature itself. Tell me what the reason was for the tsunami that killed over a quarter million people? Was there a reason or did it just happen because of the laws of nature?


Again, you ascribe human qualities to something devoid of them. The 'laws of nature' do not have abilities to do things. They just happen. 

Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

God subjected the natural order to corruption with the Fall of man. Physical death is a part of it. Adam could have eaten of the tree of life and lived forever, but that tree was denied him and us with our sin and rebellion. The other part of the rebellion is the atrophy and decay we experience in the natural world. 

Genesis 3:17 Cursed is the ground because of you;
In 
toil
you will eat of it

All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to
dust
you shall return.”


This is a curse of the Fall. It makes us cry out to God for mercy. It makes us realize how fragile our human condition is. It helps us to realize that our fate is not in our own hands. Some choose to ignore these warnings, they tend to ignore their frailties. One of the facts of life is that we will all face physical death, the death of our bodies. God decides when this will happen, for He is sovereign. 

For instance, roll a six on a dice repeatedly, without fixing it in any way one million times in a row. Theoretically, you can claim it possible but to demonstrate it would take forever. 
That's a meaningless strawman, it says nothing about our discussion. Irrelevant.

What it says is that you can presuppose all kinds of scenarios that rely on probability, but you can't demonstrate these scenarios. They can only be shown to work in theory, never in practice. 

How can you know certainty without a necessary all-knowing being?
Easy, we use our brains to think, something it appears you aren't doing.

Your brains or your minds? Why would one electro-chemical brain act in the same way as another? What reason is there for this uniformity of thinking to happen? Survival? Does how we look at origins govern whether we survive or not? Are you a result of your particular biochemical genetic make-up and environment that determines what you do and who you are, or do you have a volition that is free to choose? Does how your electro-chemical make-up free you from a determined script (a genetic robot)?


The question I asked exposes the fact that you have no certainty of origins without the existence of such a necessary Being revealing it to us. Show me which theory of origins of the universe you believe to be the true and CERTAIN explanation of origins and I will show you a myriad of other OPINIONS on the matter by just as "highly qualified" scientists and philosophers on the exact same subject matter. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
And that is all you do, make unsupportable claims.
I have given facts regarding prophecy that I defy you to prove otherwise, with reason and logic being on your side rather than mine. 

Show me one early writing that states the disciples/apostles wrote the prophecies AFTER the events foretold. Give me a piece of factual evidence from the time period. Or are you just going to BUILD this presumption in 17-21 centuries later?
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
You, a mere human claims to know the truth, but you are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true? 

Your argument is defeated by your argument.

No, it is not self-defeating if such a being as God has indeed revealed Himself to humanity and we rely on His teaching and witness. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
The wars, famines, earthquakes apply to 1st-century 
Israel; the Jewish people of that time. 


Don't be ridiculous, wars, famines, and earthquakes happened all the time.
I'm not being ridiculous. Your claims are clueless when you try to apply these wars, famines, and earthquakes to any time frame. You IGNORE the context from which these warnings come, the people who are spoken to, and the time references of the text. 

I suggest you take this argument to the prophecy thread, but I will reply here just to show you the absurdity of your claim. 

I.E., 

Matthew 24:3-14, 34
As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come...
33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

First of all, Jesus is sitting on the Mount of Olives, having just pronounced judgment on these Mosaic Covenant people:
Matthew 23:29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Who, in the context does the pronoun "you" refer to? 

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

Who is Jesus telling that their 'house' will be left to them desolate?

Matthew 24:And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

Who, in context is Jesus speaking to here? Verse three (see above) identifies He is telling the DISCIPLES things that will come upon their generation (see verse 34). The pronoun "you" IN CONTEXT, refers to THEM specifically. The wars and persecutions apply to them and their people IN CONTEXT. 

He tells His disciples that the whole temple and ritual system of worship that their world revolves around will be destroyed. He then (verses 4-34) tells them the details and signs that THEY will witness until He comes again. 

So, your claims are refuted. 

I can give Josephus' description of the destruction of Jerusalem to show you how it complies with the curses of Deuteronomy 28. I can give you John's account of the Olivet Discourse (Revelation) that details the curses of Deuteronomy 28. So your claims are groundless. You don't know what you are speaking of - no clue.
eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@disgusted
The earliest proto hebrew written language is dated around 800BC.

yet the exodus was way before that. not finding any does mean the language and writting happen long before what when have to be looked at today.
look at this , ouch. links wont enter. they found a scrol/manuscript that dates back 4200 years from egypt. looks less than 100 years old. 8'x8'.
if the good guy were in control of the chosen people scrolls they would still be around in very good condition. but as those in power kill whoever to remove anything they wanted 2,000+ years ago could do just that.


eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@secularmerlin

  
Forum posts: 1,089
Added: 10.07.18 04:12PM
--> @eash
Again and hopefully for the last time (though I can remind you again if you forget) the bible is the claim not the evidence. You must demonstrate that the bible is a good authority on reality before I am able to accept it as a good authority on reality. Also I have not made any claims, I just do not accept your claims.


my claim would be the first writers text has been re edit by those who deceive people to have power over the lesser people.

eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@secularmerlin
613 commandments in the old testament. In fact the ten commandments that are most popularly quoted are the commandments spoken by Moses. The commandments on the stone tablets Moses brought down later from mount Sinai are different (one is not to seethe a kid in it's mothers milk) and yet the ones most often shown in modern sculpture depicting said tablets are the spoken commands.


there are 12 COMMANDMENTS not 10. exo 20:1-17. i count 12. therefore the three verses in the bible that use the word ten. are idiot editors putting in deceiving words. then there Stautes, Laws.

umm i think i will start a topic on this tomorrow. thx


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
"The evil was done by the parents."
So your vindictive, petty, hateful gods kills infants and is proud of it. Does he object to abortion because he wants the monopoly? He prefers to perform it on women who want a baby, what a pissant god.

God warned Adam of the results of taking of the tree of good and evil. He would understand what evil is. Evil is to disobey what God calls good. God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree. On THE DAY he ate of it Adam would die (spiritually)

Romans 8:5-17
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

The reality that Adam passed up was a spiritual reality with God in the Garden. He died spiritually to God THAT DAY.

John 4:23-24 (NASB)
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Spiritual life is different than physical life. 

"FACT: We all die physically,"

Fact we all die placing a qualification on that is superflous, there is no other way to die. If you wish to claim there is then prove it.
You don't know God. You are dead to Him. You have no relationship to/with God. It is dead. Your spirit, your inner nature, is dead to the existence of God. Take that admonition for what it is worth. The Bible supplies many warnings that you either accept or reject to your joy or peril. 

I can't prove anything to you that you are unwilling to hear or consider. As soon as I speak to you of God your defense system and denial process go into effect. It is like speaking to a brick wall. You are not open. You continue to put up barrier after barrier, objection after objection. You are blind; you cannot see. You are deaf; you cannot hear. You are willfully denying everything the Bible says.  

"I claim I can know because God has revealed,"

You claim to know because a man has told you god has revealed, but you are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true? 
Both you and I operate by faith in things we cannot physically see, yet I can understand God because He has helped me to understand through His word and by what He has created. You cannot fathom this because you willfully deny God His existence and His creation. You will not believe His testimony so why would you believe mine? 

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

My faith is not a blind faith. It is not an unreasonable faith. It is an evidential faith. Your faith is built upon absurdity and is unreasonable because from your supposed origins there is no reason, yet you continue to find it. That should be a caveat but you wander obliviously along. Why would you expect to find meaning in a meaningless universe???????????????????


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Supply evidence of the Jews being enslaved for 400yrs by the Egyptians.
Supply evidence that 4million people wandered around the Sinai for 40yrs

What evidence would you accept? The OT and NT verify the accounts.  

There are lots of unearthed discoveries waiting to be found. Sir William M. Ramsay set out to disprove the biblical accounts of Acts and landed up confirming many places, events, historical persons, listed by Luke. Just because some evidence has not been unearthed yet does not mean it did not exist. The following link provides an outline of Ramsay's contribution to biblical history that I won't get into here.


King David was thought to be a mythical king until evidence of his existence was unearthed.

Supply evidence that there was ever a world wide flood deeper than Everest is high.

There are two minds to the Genesis accounts, Young Earth and Old Earth. For a young earther, there are millions of fossils laid down in rock layers all over the earth. That speaks of catastrophic events, mudslides, quick formation, and encasement. An animal dying on the plains will decompose, not be encased and preserved. 

The old earth view corresponds to the scientific paradigm that evolutionists espouse, with modifications. 

The interpretation of the data is the question mark. If you build your house of cards on an evolutionary (macro) mindset, the pieces of evidence are viewed along those presuppositional lines. 



As I said there is very little if any history in the bible.

Wikipedia has a list of biblical artifacts here:



Other lists of biblical histories can be found such as a list of biblical historical persons, and identified by extra-biblical sources:



Here is a list of biblical places verified with history in many cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_places

That is just a cursory search.









disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@eash
The exodus didn't happen and the rest of your drivel is incomprehensible.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I will say this again. I do not know how life originated and so I am not claiming that it came about by any particular method. I reject your claim that it was brought about by some god(s) and I reject any claim that it came about by random chance. I reject all claims concerning the origins of life until some hypothesis can be demonstrated as true. I know life exists but that does not tell me where it came from.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
I will say this again. I do not know how life originated and so I am not claiming that it came about by any particular method. I reject your claim that it was brought about by some god(s) and I reject any claim that it came about by random chance. I reject all claims concerning the origins of life until some hypothesis can be demonstrated as true. I know life exists but that does not tell me where it came from.

I can think of only a limited amount of possibilities such as:
1) life was created,
2) life came about by chance,
3) life is an illusion.

Whether you care or not is another matter. 

If you care, which is more reasonable of the three possibilities? 

With possibility number one you have a lot to lose if the biblical God is the true Creator and the other two premises are false.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no way to know. I reject all three claims until one is demonstrated to me as true.

Of course I care. I am quite curious as to the origin of life. I eagerly await any scientific findings in support of these questions and if course you only listed three possibilities. The hypothesis I favor is that everything is a natural product of cause and effect and that the initial conditions of the universe (whatever or whenever that was) unguided by consciousness and that things are not predetermined so much as mindlessly predictable.

We will almost certainly never explore it all however and we will likely never be able to travel back to the moments before the big bang when we have no observable evidence of anything so we will probably never know.

As for life being created even if we assume that the universe itself is evidence if some creator that doesn't tell us anything about this creator other than that it created the univers. We don't know what its morality is like. We don't know if it cares about its creation and we don't know if it is still arround. Any statement therefore about the attributes of this hypothetical being are perforce mere conjecture. Of course we don't really know if the universe was created so the whole discussion of what this creator might be is really irrelevant until such time, if any, that some evidence beyond anecdotal for or against the hypothesis is offered.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I can think of only a limited amount of possibilities such as:
1) life was created,
2) life came about by chance,
3) life is an illusion.
But, that's only what you can think of, yet there are other alternative you haven't thought of, hence you're making your decisions based on personal incredulity and ignorance. Just because you haven't educated yourself, doesn't mean others haven't also.

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
I can think of only a limited amount of possibilities such as:
1) life was created,
2) life came about by chance,
3) life is an illusion.
But, that's only what you can think of, yet there are other alternative you haven't thought of, hence you're making your decisions based on personal incredulity and ignorance. Just because you haven't educated yourself, doesn't mean others haven't also.

Such as?