How can we know if the Abrhamic God Is the one true God?

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

....that would be consistent with being divinely inspired by the one true God.

Assuming God cares what religion you are. Assuming a dark force couldn't manipulate people to liking Christianity. Assuming that forced conversions are now legitimate. Assuming you ignore all psychical evidence that suggests part of the reason behind Christianity's numbers aren't caused by constant missionary efforts. Actually wait why would you even think that makes sense? So people read it a lot therefore it has to be true? It's the most popular book therefore God?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Assuming God cares what religion you are. Assuming a dark force couldn't manipulate people to liking Christianity. Assuming that forced conversions are now legitimate. Assuming you ignore all psychical evidence that suggests part of the reason behind Christianity's numbers aren't caused by constant missionary efforts. Actually wait why would you even think that makes sense? So people read it a lot therefore it has to be true? It's the most popular book therefore God?

Those are largely logical assumptions yes, why wouldn't God want to make a life guide available and have it resonate across millennia, continents, cultures? more than any other book?

 

[Jumi]

Those are largely logical assumptions yes, why wouldn't God want to make a life guide available and have it resonate across millennia, continents, cultures? more than any other book?

Perhaps a guidebook that would be easier to interpret would be more in line with such God.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Those are largely logical assumptions yes, why wouldn't God want to make a life guide available and have it resonate across millennia, continents, cultures? more than any other book?

Oh and of course assuming God exists. Because a argumentum ad populum doesn't mean something is true. So what before Christianity if the vast majority of people were arguing and believed in pagan gods that would make it true? Don't you think maybe there is a reason outside of God that the bible might be the most popular book of all time?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps a guidebook that would be easier to interpret would be more in line with such God.

Are you saying that if you edited it, it would be more successful?!

I think the success speaks for itself, on interpretation: again- how do you write a book that resonates over millennia, continents and cultures? it has to be interpreted by different people, times, places

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh and of course assuming God exists. Because a argumentum ad populum doesn't mean something is true. So what before Christianity if the vast majority of people were arguing and believed in pagan gods that would make it true? Don't you think maybe there is a reason outside of God that the bible might be the most popular book of all time?

Well timing is important in publishing
The Bible & new testament were/ was produced at the exact time, place, needed- the crux of modern civilization, crucial to becoming the foundation of modern society as we know it today

 

[J2hapydna]

Those are issues some have with their ideas about those prophecies.

It seems so depressing to think that you are waiting around for some terrible stuff to happen to Israel (plagues, earthquakes, cold weather darkness and an attack by the Arabs, causing half to die and the rest to flee.Then Jesus will come and recruit you in his army etc. and bring back the Jews. it seems such a depressing way to live -always fearing that two parties at war will make peace and never let you see any real evidence for the existence of god.

would it be right to assume that you would do nothing to help Muslims understand MP in the Bible in away that would allow the Jews to live peacefully in Israel and Muslims to be Muslims?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How can we know if the Abrahamic God is the one true God?

Because believers really, really, really seem convinced that their god is the real deal.

Although, I guess this applies to a whole range of gods.

Maybe they all exist.

 

[gnostic]

Jeremiah 32:35: "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."

Leviticus 20:2-3 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name.

Leviticus 18:21 "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD."

Deuteronomy 12:31 "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

Molech was a god of the Ammonites, Phoenicians and to some parts of Canaan. Those quotes from Leviticus and Deuteronomy are directly tied to the Canaanites, not to the Amalekites.

And the Valley of Ben Hinnom is what is referred to as Topheth and Gehenna, located in or just outside of Old City of Jerusalem, and it was the kings of Judah, not the Amalekites. Jerusalem was formerly a city of the Canaanite, before David made it into his capital. The Canaanites worshipped both Molech and Baal, as did some kings of Judah, e.g. Ahaz.

It is not known Molech was a god for the Amalekites. There is no records of which gods they worshipped.

You keep confusing the Amalekites with the Canaanites.

 

[Jumi]

Are you saying that if you edited it, it would be more successful?!

Perhaps it would be used less for opposite or bad purposes.

I think the success speaks for itself, on interpretation: again- how do you write a book that resonates over millennia, continents and cultures? it has to be interpreted by different people, times, places

The worse and avoidable interpretations have come at great loss of life.

 

[J2hapydna]

Molech was a god of the Ammonites, Phoenicians and to some parts of Canaan. Those quotes from Leviticus and Deuteronomy are directly tied to the Canaanites, not to the Amalekites.

And the Valley of Ben Hinnom is what is referred to as Topheth and Gehenna, located in or just outside of Old City of Jerusalem, and it was the kings of Judah, not the Amalekites. Jerusalem was formerly a city of the Canaanite, before David made it into his capital. The Canaanites worshipped both Molech and Baal, as did some kings of Judah, e.g. Ahaz.

It is not known Molech was a god for the Amalekites. There is no records of which gods they worshipped.

You keep confusing the Amalekites with the Canaanites.

The Amelkites were patrilineal descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Esau. They were closely related to the Israelites. On the maternal side they had married into the Canaanites. So there is no reason to assume they worshipped some other gods at this point. If you have contrary archaeological evidence, then please share it. Otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to assume they were worshipping the same gods as the Canaanites in Canaan.

The main point I made, that you keep skirting, is that these people witnessed the miracles and spoke to the prophets. They were given time and opportunity to change. Among the children of Esau, the Kenites changed, but the Amelkites didnt.

 

[J2hapydna]

Whether these stories in the Bible are true or not is a separate and valid question

 

[omega2xx]

Sorry, but I didn't find any direct references to Amalekites what you are claiming they might have done.

There is no direct rference to tghe Amalekite. The references are to Molech(Lev 128:21, 20:2-5, 2 Ki 23:10 & Jer 32:35) who was a Canananite God. I beleive "canananite is a general term for all the nations living in that area.

The references to throwing children into fire, as sacrifice, were Moses telling them what the Canaanites allegedly did, not the Amalekites.

Right, and I may be wrong about Cananite being a general term for several nations.

When I have time I will try to find more info on "cananite.

 

[Segev Moran]

You need to work on seeking a relationship with God rather the questions.

I know God loves you and appreciates your efforts to study his word, pray, and seek. You need to seek a relationship with God above knowledge and Dogma.

How do you know that?
I Spoke with God and he specifically told me he hates people.

 

[gnostic]

Wow, J2hapydna. The only person I see, who skirting the subject is you.

You, have quoted two verses, on about Molech, Jeremiah 32:35 and Leviticus 20:2-3, none of which say it say that they were Amalekites.

What we do know is that the Canaanites do worship both Baal and Molech.

And you were the one who made the claim that these verses referred to the Amalekites. And yet, you want me to provide archaeological evidences.

I have already told you, that there were no evidences to support they (Amalekites) were worshipping Molech.

Second, Jeremiah was supposedly a prophet, supposedly writing in the time of Josiah (reign 640 - 609 BCE) to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.

So if - and I must stress the word "if" - if 1 Samuel is true about the King Saul (reign c 1050 - 1012 BCE) and the rise of David were "true", and that the genocide of the Amalekites did take place, then if the Amalekites died out in the genocide, then logically, Jeremiah couldn't be writing about the Amalekites sacrificing children to Baal and Molech in verse 32:35 of his book that he supposedly wrote.

Do understand what I am saying here about Jeremiah?

The Amalekites should not exist in Jeremiah's time, for about 4 centuries, so it would stand to reason, that human sacrifices of children, another group of people must be responsible for what Jeremiah was describing, and they couldn't be the Amalekites, if Saul's slaughtered every man, woman and child.

You were the one who quoted Jeremiah (32:35). Therefore, you were the one trying to connect sacrifices of children by fire, at the Valley of Ben Hinnom, to the Amalekites.

You are the one who is not thinking logically if those books were true. You are purely speculating that these sacrifices were being performed by the Amalekites.

None of the human sacrifices, you have claimed in your earlier replies to me, ever explicitly showed that the Amalekites were responsible for these acts.

You were trying to connect the dots, between sacrifices and the Amalekite massacre, to blame the Amalekites to justify god ordering Saul to kill all Amalekites. But these dots are based on your personal interpretations of those quotes, with no evidences, and therefore, no historical fact.

 

[gnostic]

There is no direct rference to tghe Amalekite. The references are to Molech(Lev 128:21, 20:2-5, 2 Ki 23:10 & Jer 32:35) who was a Canananite God. I beleive "canananite is a general term for all the nations living in that area.



Right, and I may be wrong about Cananite being a general term for several nations.

When I have time I will try to find more info on "cananite.

Yes, you do that. Do the research, and try to find the evidences.

All references to human sacrifices being connected to the Amalekites, are mainly based on interpretations.

Such interpretations are based on how one read certain passages, and based on interpreting the context and making assumptions, which doesn't mean the interpretations are right.

You and J2hapydna have so far used interpretations, and interpreting them very loosely. No fact and no evidences so far, that collaborated yours or J2hapydna's interpretations and assumptions.

As to the Canaanites. The Canaanites were descendants of Ham, while Amalekites are supposedly descendants of Isaac through Esau. The Amalekites have always being identified as Amalekites, not Canaanites, even if there were intermixed with the Canaanites or the Israelites.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, you do that. Do the research, and try to find the evidences.

Canaanites were descendants of Ham, Noah's youngest son. They are divided into 11 subdivisions Gen 10:15-19 IMO, it is reasonable to believe they were the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan. Molech was a Canaanite god and those who worshiped him practices child, fire sacrifices.

All references to human sacrifices being connected to the Amalekites, are mainly based on interpretations.

Yes they are and they may be wrong, but you can't prove my interpretations is not valid. However it is really irrelevant. My premise still stands: Nothing God does affects the final destination of anyone. Children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven. If those children became adults and practiced the false religion of their parents, they would go to hell. Also, it would keep Israel for adopting their gods and religion, which would end up sendindg them to hell.

Such interpretations are based on how one read certain passages, and based on interpreting the context and making assumptions, which doesn't mean the interpretations are right.

It also doesn't mean they are wrong.

You and J2hapydna have so far used interpretations, and interpreting them very loosely. No fact and no evidences so far, that collaborated yours or J2hapydna's interpretations and assumptions.[/QUOTE]

Unless you have a better interpretation that you can prove, it is only your opinion that our interpretations are very loose.

As to the Canaanites. The Canaanites were descendants of Ham, while Amalekites are supposedly descendants of Isaac through Esau. The Amalekites have always being identified as Amalekites, not Canaanites, even if there were intermixed with the Canaanites or the Israelites.

IMO, child sacrifices were not limited to the worship of Molech but I have no evidence to support it. I still maintain my premise is valid. It is the best explanation as to why a compassionate God would destroy anyone. If you don't like my interpretation, that's fine with me.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The first point I made is that these people had prophets who were constantly performing miracles.

What do miracles do except guarantee an audience? Even "pagans" can do miracles. Sure, a magic show is nice and all, but what then?

Did Herod perform miracles?

He lived through the Caesar drama. That was a miracle.

Did the Romans?

Has anyone in the modern age?

What Do the World’s Religions Say About Miracles?

Fair enough, more importantly, i think we would all like to see archaeological evidence that Moses and the prophets did what the Bible says they did.

And what the evidence says is ... barely anything about them happened if at all.

Whether these stories in the Bible are true or not is a separate and valid question

But determining the validity of the source material is necessary, at least in part, to answer the question, yes?

 

[gnostic]

Unless you have a better interpretation that you can prove, it is only your opinion that our interpretations are very loose.

You really don't understand the concept of scholarship, do you, omega2xx?

Ok, let me give you an example of two ways to read a specific passage.

When two people read the same passage from book J, from the very same translation.

One person, let's say X person, read this passage, as they are without adding to or removing from the passage, then he is only understanding the verse, as it meant to be read, without modifying in any way to suit his any agenda of his.

Then, we have Y person, try to add new meaning to this same passage (in book J) that X has read. Let say the thing, the "new meaning" thing he is adding, come from a different book (K), unrelated the current book (J); the two books are not written by the same person, not in the same periods.

Now, who do you think is changing the original context of the passage in book J? Person X or Y?

And who do you think need to prove his claim? X or Y?

Person Y is the one who has changed the original context of the passage, by trying to reinterpreting text with new meaning. This mean the one who need to prove his claim, is the one who changed the meaning of the text with his re-interpretations.

I did not attempt to change the meaning to any of the verses that J2hapydna had presented to me in his reply. So I don't need to prove anything to you or to J2hapydna.

J2hapydna, however, have tried to reinterpret those verses J2hapydna has cited, by assuming these passages have to with Amalekites, even though Amalekites were never mentioned.

So unless J2hapydna - and you, if you agree with J2hapydna's reinterpretation to Jeremiah and Leviticus verses - in regarding to Amalekites performing human child sacrifices, then J2hapydna (and possibly you) will need to prove your (re-) interpretations are correct ones. If you two can't prove it, then your reinterpretations are merely your opinions.

Jeremiah 32:35 never stated that Amalekites were involved in child sacrifices. For J2hapydna say it is, then he is the one who need to prove it, not me, because I haven't modified the passage with new meaning or new interpretation.

Beside that, if 1 Samuel 15 is true, that all Amalekites were killed by Saul's men, then who is Jeremiah talking about in 32:35, if the Amalekites no longer exist in his time.

To me, J2hapydna is making false claim with Jeremiah 32:35, and it is actually up to him to prove it.

 

[omega2xx]

You really don't understand the concept of scholarship, do you, omega2xx?

Right, agree with gnostic or you don't understand. How self-serving. I don't have to understand scholarship. I only need to understand the text in its context. I haven't seen anything in your post that inidate you understand scholarship

Ok, let me give you an example of two ways to read a specific passage.

When two people read the same passage from book J, from the very same translation.

One person, let's say X person, read this passage, as they are without adding to or removing from the passage, then he is only understanding the verse, as it meant to be read, without modifying in any way to suit his any agenda of his.

Then, we have Y person, try to add new meaning to this same passage (in book J) that X has read. Let say the thing, the "new meaning" thing he is adding, come from a different book (K), unrelated the current book (J); the two books are not written by the same person, not in the same periods.

Now, who do you think is changing the original context of the passage in book J? Person X or Y?

DUUH

And who do you think need to prove his claim? X or Y?

Person Y is the one who has changed the original context of the passage, by trying to reinterpreting text with new meaning. This mean the one who need to prove his claim, is the one who changed the meaning of the text with his re-interpretations.

I did not attempt to change the meaning to any of the verses that J2hapydna had presented to me in his reply. So I don't need to prove anything to you or to J2hapydna.

You need to prove it if you want to convince me you are right.

2hapydna, however, have tried to reinterpret those verses J2hapydna has cited, by assuming these passages have to with Amalekites, even though Amalekites were never mentioned.

It is not about reinterpreting, it is about using other Scripture to interpret it.

So unless J2hapydna - and you, if you agree with J2hapydna's reinterpretation to Jeremiah and Leviticus verses - in regarding to Amalekites performing human child sacrifices, then J2hapydna (and possibly you) will need to prove your (re-) interpretations are correct ones. If you two can't prove it, then your reinterpretations are merely your opinions.

Many interpretation are only opinions, including yours. If anyone accepts that God is love and full of compassion and lovingkindness as the Bible describes Him and sees his requiring some civilizations to be destroyed indicated He is not love, you have to admit the Bible contradicts itself in describing God. I am not willing to do that but apparently you are. I will attribute this to my ignorance and not having all the facts I need.

My interpretation offers an explanation that can keep the description of God as compassionate and full of loving kindness. If you don't like my interpretation, I couldn't care less.

Jeremiah 32:35 never stated that Amalekites were involved in child sacrifices. For J2hapydna say it is, then he is the one who need to prove it, not me, because I haven't modified the passage with new meaning or new interpretation.

Beside that, if 1 Samuel 15 is true, that all Amalekites were killed by Saul's men, then who is Jeremiah talking about in 32:35, if the Amalekites no longer exist in his time.

To me, J2hapydna is making false claim with Jeremiah 32:35, and it is actually up to him to prove it.

Is God love and is He compassionate and full of lovingkindness?