• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I can't decide whether God exists!

james2ko

Well-Known Member
I raise my eye brow at the both of you and don't understand what you guys are talking about.

We're discussing the topic..and reminiscing about some of the lively discussions we've had in the past. There's an understanding between us---I think. She knows I still love her as a former believer and fellow human being. Aint that right, waitasec? :)
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
So I've been on this earth for 23 years. For the first 17 or so, I "kinda" believed in God, just went along with what my family said. Went to church, but more to see friends than for any other reason. Since 18, I have been unsure whether God exists. I've never "experienced" God, and I've never heard God speaking to me at any point in my life. But I've lived a fairly sinful life up to this point, even though I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, steal, and I've never murdered or physically harmed someone. By sinful, I mean somewhat selfish.

Anyway, what it would take for me to 100% believe in God is seeing a miracle, such as the ones Jesus did, or God did such as raining frogs in Egypt. Or hearing a voice speaking to me that I'm sure isn't myself.

Reasons I don't believe in God 100% is it just seems perfectly logical and possible that all life on Earth evolved from very simple, microscopic lifeforms. I'm a biology major, and I believe 100% in evolution (in fact, I've seen it happen in yeast with my own eyes). Also, I've seen a UFO once, and if they are indeed piloted by extraterrestrials, I think that disproves God because he created humans to have dominion over all things. That wouldn't make sense if there were life forms more intelligent than humans. Also, the question of why did God create such a universe so vast if we humans probably won't even be able to see it?

Reasons I believe there's some chance god exists is near death experiences. I'm reading Descent into Death by Howard Storm, and I'm getting chills reading it because what it describes is almost exactly what my church tells me spirit world is like.

THoughts?

Welcome to the forums!

I wanted to introduce a few comments on my own. I think what the title of this thread suggests is that you are having trouble deciding whether to believe that God is real. To you God seems unnecessary based on what you learned in biology. You accept that evolution is real, you have acquired a belief that space aliens exist, and you are wondering what the point is in creating a universe so big that humans cannot fully see it all.

As for deciding whether to believe that God is real or not-I presume you have in mind the biblical deity. I believe that such a being is not real based on my careful studying of the Bible. I personally believe that the Bible contains flaws that no divine being would've allowed into his perfect, infallible, inspired revelation. I tend not to believe that any all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving deities exist because of the problem of evil.

However, I have not ruled out the possibility that other divine beings exist. For instance, I haven't ruled out the possibility that a divine being exists that may be all-powerful and all-knowing but neither good or evil. I believe that there could exist a divine being or so who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally neutral or perhaps a divine being who has finite power, finite knowledge, and might be morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral. I just don't know of any evidence for any such beings.

It seems like you are on a similar quest. You seem like a fellow seeker. I would encourage you to begin a spiritual quest like I'm doing. I want to read different sacred texts and talk to people. I also want to read different arguments for and against the existence of divine beings. If you're intellectually inclined (I'm assuming that this might be the case considering that you're a biology major), reading different arguments for and against divine beings might be right up your alley.

As for reading this one book by Howard Storm, I hope you take books like this with a grain of salt. I don't know about this book nor have I heard the title or the author before. But I have been intrigued by a book before, even a bit fascinated by it, only to find out that it's complete nonsense. I started reading into a book called The Holographic Universe thinking that it was a book by a scientist who was carefully exploring some controversial ideas in phyiscs and then carefully exploring the claims of the paranormal, debunking as many claims as he could while carefully speculating about how ideas in phyiscs could explain other phenomena considered "paranormal".

The book turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was written by a crank who, after discussing two highly controversial ideas involving holograms, parades just about every pet paranormal idea that he likes and tries to explain them in terms of holograms and holography, as if by doing so, they suddenly seem to acquire a new sense of scientific credibility that they previously lacked before. I was disappointed. He was a believer in the paranormal since his youth and he just got carried away and seems to uncritically accept every crank paranormal idea out there and, now that he has unlocked the scientific secrets behind them, scientists should take the paranormal more seriously.

I would love to recommend a book for you to read. It's Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World. I love it! It's an excellent introduction to rational thinking and scientific skepticism.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
When was the last time you saw a house reproduce naturally? You're making a category error in your analogy, it's false reasoning.

And you consider reproduction less complex than building a home? DNA blueprints simpler than a set of house plans? Would you argue that a set of house plans just happened? If not, what basis have you to say that cell reproduction, which man cannot fully understand, much less duplicate, came by chance? No, it is not false reasoning to look for an intelligent person when seeking the origin of things that display amazing design and engineering skills.
 

Benhamine

Learning Member
And you consider reproduction less complex than building a home? DNA blueprints simpler than a set of house plans? Would you argue that a set of house plans just happened? If not, what basis have you to say that cell reproduction, which man cannot fully understand, much less duplicate, came by chance? No, it is not false reasoning to look for an intelligent person when seeking the origin of things that display amazing design and engineering skills.
And by this I assume you imply that said house plans/DNA was created by a creator? How did this creator come about? Did he...just happen?

-Benhamine
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Thanks for indirectly admitting to twisting my statement. ;)
i didn't twist your statement...you said it was better for someone to remain undecided...

It most certainly is for some:

2 Pet 2:20-21 And when people escape from the wickedness of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up and enslaved by sin again, they are worse off than before. It would be better if they had never known the way to righteousness than to know it and then reject the command they were given to live a holy life. NLT​
like adam and eve? it would be better to do nothing even though they were innocent free beings...? we are hardly free to learn if a boundary of willful ignorance is in place.

The fact yodachoda starts out questioning the existence of God only increases his/her odds of fulfilling the implications of the passage.
isn't that a sign of insecurity? for the sake of argument we were "created" with the ability to be curious and to question, you seem to think that the truth will be absorbed by the process of osmosis...no it doesn't.


I'm afraid you edited your comment a wee bit too late. It was changed from, and I'm paraphrasing-- once you're cornered, you start insulting people's intelligence--to the comment above, smart move ;)
i did that because i decided i didn't want to go there...


because you know deep down it isn't true. Now to the current comment. I may have dropped the ball in certain conversations, who hasn't? But never because I was cornered.

sure whatever you say...:sarcastic
 

pwfaith

Active Member
Anyway, what it would take for me to 100% believe in God is seeing a miracle, such as the ones Jesus did, or God did such as raining frogs in Egypt. Or hearing a voice speaking to me that I'm sure isn't myself.

I have not read the other replies yet, but I'm curious as to why you think this would make you believe, when it didn't make many of those people believe?
 

Yanni

Active Member
So I've been on this earth for 23 years. For the first 17 or so, I "kinda" believed in God, just went along with what my family said. Went to church, but more to see friends than for any other reason. Since 18, I have been unsure whether God exists. I've never "experienced" God, and I've never heard God speaking to me at any point in my life. But I've lived a fairly sinful life up to this point, even though I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, steal, and I've never murdered or physically harmed someone. By sinful, I mean somewhat selfish.

Anyway, what it would take for me to 100% believe in God is seeing a miracle, such as the ones Jesus did, or God did such as raining frogs in Egypt. Or hearing a voice speaking to me that I'm sure isn't myself.

Reasons I don't believe in God 100% is it just seems perfectly logical and possible that all life on Earth evolved from very simple, microscopic lifeforms. I'm a biology major, and I believe 100% in evolution (in fact, I've seen it happen in yeast with my own eyes). Also, I've seen a UFO once, and if they are indeed piloted by extraterrestrials, I think that disproves God because he created humans to have dominion over all things. That wouldn't make sense if there were life forms more intelligent than humans. Also, the question of why did God create such a universe so vast if we humans probably won't even be able to see it?

Reasons I believe there's some chance god exists is near death experiences. I'm reading Descent into Death by Howard Storm, and I'm getting chills reading it because what it describes is almost exactly what my church tells me spirit world is like.

THoughts?
I suggest you read a book called Beyond a Reasonable Doubt by Rabbi Shmuel Waldman. He does an excellent job at what his book "prooves." I won't say anymore. Perhaps you can see convincing evidence of the existence of God through the lenses of Orthodox Judaism (I'm not trying to convert you). Anyway, here is the link to the book: Amazon.com: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (9781583308066): Rabbi Shmuel Waldman: Books.
Or you can look at this site that has plenty of articles regarding the existence of God: Judaism - The Jewish Website
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Welcome to the forums!

I wanted to introduce a few comments on my own. I think what the title of this thread suggests is that you are having trouble deciding whether to believe that God is real. To you God seems unnecessary based on what you learned in biology. You accept that evolution is real, you have acquired a belief that space aliens exist, and you are wondering what the point is in creating a universe so big that humans cannot fully see it all.

As for deciding whether to believe that God is real or not-I presume you have in mind the biblical deity. I believe that such a being is not real based on my careful studying of the Bible. I personally believe that the Bible contains flaws that no divine being would've allowed into his perfect, infallible, inspired revelation. I tend not to believe that any all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving deities exist because of the problem of evil.

However, I have not ruled out the possibility that other divine beings exist. For instance, I haven't ruled out the possibility that a divine being exists that may be all-powerful and all-knowing but neither good or evil. I believe that there could exist a divine being or so who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally neutral or perhaps a divine being who has finite power, finite knowledge, and might be morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral. I just don't know of any evidence for any such beings.

It seems like you are on a similar quest. You seem like a fellow seeker. I would encourage you to begin a spiritual quest like I'm doing. I want to read different sacred texts and talk to people. I also want to read different arguments for and against the existence of divine beings. If you're intellectually inclined (I'm assuming that this might be the case considering that you're a biology major), reading different arguments for and against divine beings might be right up your alley.

As for reading this one book by Howard Storm, I hope you take books like this with a grain of salt. I don't know about this book nor have I heard the title or the author before. But I have been intrigued by a book before, even a bit fascinated by it, only to find out that it's complete nonsense. I started reading into a book called The Holographic Universe thinking that it was a book by a scientist who was carefully exploring some controversial ideas in phyiscs and then carefully exploring the claims of the paranormal, debunking as many claims as he could while carefully speculating about how ideas in phyiscs could explain other phenomena considered "paranormal".

The book turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was written by a crank who, after discussing two highly controversial ideas involving holograms, parades just about every pet paranormal idea that he likes and tries to explain them in terms of holograms and holography, as if by doing so, they suddenly seem to acquire a new sense of scientific credibility that they previously lacked before. I was disappointed. He was a believer in the paranormal since his youth and he just got carried away and seems to uncritically accept every crank paranormal idea out there and, now that he has unlocked the scientific secrets behind them, scientists should take the paranormal more seriously.

I would love to recommend a book for you to read. It's Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World. I love it! It's an excellent introduction to rational thinking and scientific skepticism.



I know the Bible definitely has flaws, (For example in the New Testament in the original translation and most other languages such as German, James's name is actually Jacob and (As far as I am aware, only the English Bible says James instead of Jacob. but you should try reading the Book of Mormon. In the very introduction of it, it is called "the most correct book on earth. I invite you to challenge that.

Oh and another thing, having a living prophet is so much better than having a dead prophet.
 

pwfaith

Active Member
I know the Bible definitely has flaws, (For example in the New Testament in the original translation and most other languages such as German, James's name is actually Jacob and (As far as I am aware, only the English Bible says James instead of Jacob. but you should try reading the Book of Mormon. In the very introduction of it, it is called "the most correct book on earth. I invite you to challenge that.

Oh and another thing, having a living prophet is so much better than having a dead prophet.

Perhaps not a flaw :) "Why Did the Book of Jacob Get Changed to the Book of James?" - Probe Ministries

The NT was written in Greek, the OT was written in Hebrew. James 1:1 (where the author introduces himself) "James (Iakobos), a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." James in Greek, Iakobos. In Hebrew, Yaaqob. James is “Jacob,” coming out of Hebrew through the Greek into the English it comes out “James”.

Not a flaw, just a misunderstanding :)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Perhaps not a flaw :) "Why Did the Book of Jacob Get Changed to the Book of James?" - Probe Ministries

The NT was written in Greek, the OT was written in Hebrew. James 1:1 (where the author introduces himself) "James (Iakobos), a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." James in Greek, Iakobos. In Hebrew, Yaaqob. James is “Jacob,” coming out of Hebrew through the Greek into the English it comes out “James”.

Not a flaw, just a misunderstanding :)[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

So you are stating if the German New Testament was translated from Hebrew to German and not Greek to German, as well as the Bibles of so many other languages?

And what about the very first Hebrew word in the Bible?

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."

Another translation error I recently learned about was was also in the book of Genesis after God formed Adam from the dust of the earth he commanded him to "multiply and replenish the earth" The word replenish means to make full or complete again, or refill. Using the word replenish implies that God formed men on earth previous to Adam, which simply isn't true. Why does it say replenish? It is a translation error. I don't remember the exact Hebrew word that was used off the top of my head, but if you look it states the very same Hebrew word in Genesis 1:22 when God commanded the fish to fill the oceans and seas. It is the very same Hebrew word, but this time it was translated correctly.

Don't get me wrong, I very much believe in the Bible, although I do acknowledge the fact that there are several translation errors.
 

pwfaith

Active Member
So you are stating if the German New Testament was translated from Hebrew to German and not Greek to German, as well as the Bibles of so many other languages?

I suppose, if Hebrew was the original language of the NT it would have to have been Hebrew, not Greek.

And what about the very first Hebrew word in the Bible?

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."
Not sure I quite follow all this but this might be useful 101 Translations of John 1:1 "...and the Word was God." It talks of Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, The: “Bereshis (In the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem (YESHAYAH 55:11; BERE**** 1:1), and the Dvar Hasem was agav (along with) Hashem (MISHLE 8:30; 30:4), and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! (TEHILLIM 56:11(10); yn17:5; Rev. 19:13).”

Another translation error I recently learned about was also in the book of Genesis after God formed Adam from the dust of the earth he commanded him to "multiply and replenish the earth" The word replenish means to make full or complete again, or refill. Using the word replenish implies that God formed men on earth previous to Adam, which simply isn't true. Why does it say replenish? It is a translation error. I don't remember the exact Hebrew word that was used off the top of my head, but if you look it states the very same Hebrew word in Genesis 1:22 when God commanded the fish to fill the oceans and seas. It is the very same Hebrew word, but this time it was translated correctly.
Keep in mind that was the KJV. Words have different meanings back then...
To "replenish" something means to “fill” it. So Adam and Eve were told only to “fill” the earth, not “refill” it. We can see this is true in both the dictionary definition and in each of the seven times “replenish” is used in the Bible.

In order to understand a classical English word from the King James Bible, we should use a classical English dictionary, like Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary. Here is how it defines the word "replenish".


Here is the dictionary definition of “replenish”:
“To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are replenished with water.
‘Multiply, and replenish the earth,’ Genesis 1.”



There are 7 Bible verses that use the word “replenish” or “replenished.” Each time it is used in the Bible, it means “fill” or “filled”: [I won't waste space posting all of them you can read them for yourself later] (link)

Most modern day translations say "fill" b/c it is a more accurate translation for our modern day language and it more accurately communicates what God was saying. Replenish worked for classical English like in King James day but it does not as much today, however when we look at the above and understand the language differences, it's easier to understand.

Don't get me wrong, I very much believe in the Bible, although I do acknowledge the fact that there are several translation errors.
You might find this article interesting about translation errors Have the original words been lost? and Have the original words been lost?
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
I know the Bible definitely has flaws, (For example in the New Testament in the original translation and most other languages such as German, James's name is actually Jacob and (As far as I am aware, only the English Bible says James instead of Jacob. but you should try reading the Book of Mormon. In the very introduction of it, it is called "the most correct book on earth. I invite you to challenge that.Oh and another thing, having a living prophet is so much better than having a dead prophet.

Didn't Joseph Smith, Jr produce his own translation of the Bible?

I'm curious, why are you inviting me to read the Book of Mormon?

I actually had a copy of the Book of Mormon. I tried to read the first book, 1st Nephi (I think it was) and I couldn't make it past the third chapter. I got too irritated by the grammar. No offense to the LDS church, but if I was to attempt to read the Book of Mormon again, I would have to rewrite the book just so that the grammar was suitable for me (the word "yea" is very irritating to me).

Being that I have made a point of reading as much of the world's sacred literature as I can in my lifetime, I might have to rewrite not only the Book of Mormon but also Doctrine and Covenants and other literature that is part of the LDS canon. The only point I can see to reading the LDS holy books would be just to get a greater understanding of their doctrines.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Didn't Joseph Smith, Jr produce his own translation of the Bible?

I'm curious, why are you inviting me to read the Book of Mormon?

I actually had a copy of the Book of Mormon. I tried to read the first book, 1st Nephi (I think it was) and I couldn't make it past the third chapter. I got too irritated by the grammar. No offense to the LDS church, but if I was to attempt to read the Book of Mormon again, I would have to rewrite the book just so that the grammar was suitable for me (the word "yea" is very irritating to me).

Being that I have made a point of reading as much of the world's sacred literature as I can in my lifetime, I might have to rewrite not only the Book of Mormon but also Doctrine and Covenants and other literature that is part of the LDS canon. The only point I can see to reading the LDS holy books would be just to get a greater understanding of their doctrines.

Aww... 1st Nephi chapter 3 is when Nephi slays Laban I love that story....

I believe the reason I invited you to read it was to challenge it and try to disprove its teachings. See if it really is "The most correct book on earth".
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
I suppose, if Hebrew was the original language of the NT it would have to have been Hebrew, not Greek.

Not sure I quite follow all this but this might be useful 101 Translations of John 1:1 "...and the Word was God." It talks of Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, The: “Bereshis (In the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem (YESHAYAH 55:11; BERE**** 1:1), and the Dvar Hasem was agav (along with) Hashem (MISHLE 8:30; 30:4), and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! (TEHILLIM 56:11(10); yn17:5; Rev. 19:13).”


Umm... that was just 101 translations to John 1:1.
The translation error is Genesis 1:1


Keep in mind that was the KJV. Words have different meanings back then...
To "replenish" something means to “fill” it. So Adam and Eve were told only to “fill” the earth, not “refill” it. We can see this is true in both the dictionary definition and in each of the seven times “replenish” is used in the Bible.

In order to understand a classical English word from the King James Bible, we should use a classical English dictionary, like Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary. Here is how it defines the word "replenish".


Here is the dictionary definition of “replenish”:
“To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are replenished with water.
‘Multiply, and replenish the earth,’ Genesis 1.”



There are 7 Bible verses that use the word “replenish” or “replenished.” Each time it is used in the Bible, it means “fill” or “filled”: [I won't waste space posting all of them you can read them for yourself later] (link)

Most modern day translations say "fill" b/c it is a more accurate translation for our modern day language and it more accurately communicates what God was saying. Replenish worked for classical English like in King James day but it does not as much today, however when we look at the above and understand the language differences, it's easier to understand.

You might find this article interesting about translation errors Have the original words been lost? and Have the original words been lost?

First I'll talk about your dictionary definition.
I've read a lot of dictionaries in my life and each one has been a little different, some more detailed than others. My personal favorite are the Collegiate Dictionaries, they have the most detailed definitions. I once looked up the word paradise in a dictionary and it said among the many other definitions "a resting place for the departed spirits." I thought oh wow that is pretty cool, then I went and looked it up in another dictionary and it simply stated any happy place. It was a very simple dictionary.
Was this Noah Websters 1828 a collegiate dictionary or a simple dictionary?
Another thought on that.
Can you show me what the definition of refill is in this Noah Webster's dictionary 1828?
Interestingly enough, there are many dictionaries around today (simple dictionaries) that simply say the definition of replenish is fill
Does refill mean to fill? Yes. Is replenish another word for refill? Yes, and
I am quite certain it was the same back in 1828.

It only says the word replenish 7 times in the Bible? One of these days I'm gonna buy me a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible. That book is awesome. Some pastor once showed me one and I've drooled over it ever since. It mentions every time it says the word the in "the" bible and has references to them all.As well as every other word in the entire Bible. Its amazing.

The 7 times you are talking about were...

1. Replenish the earth

Genesis 1:28
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

2
Genesis 9:1
“And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”


3. Replenished from the east

Isaiah 2:6
“Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.”


4. Replenished every sorrowful soul

Jeremiah 31:25
“For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul.”


5. Tyrus (Tyre) Replenished by merchants

Isaiah 23:2
“Be still, ye inhabitants of the isle; thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished.”

6
Ezekiel 26:2
“Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:”

7
Ezekiel 27:25
“The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market: and thou wast replenished, and made very glorious in the midst of the seas.”


In every one of those, except the first one, I can clearly see the word replenish meaning (to refill, nourish, or restore.)
#3 was interesting "being replenished by the east."What was east of Jerusalem? Babylon (the great symbol of worldliness) when they got tired and life got them down, where did they turn to instead of God to get them re-energized and refueled and ready to take on another day? The world.

_____________________________________________________________

Another translation error was the word create I'll quote something from another thread.


"The English word "create" is one of those. The english word "create" should not be in the Bible, it is a mistranslation. "Creationists" have been duped by a translation error.

Hebrew Word Studies
Child Root (Branches of the Tree)Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.


The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews.
and should therefore NOT be in the Bible.


Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
bara'
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

The Greek NT word:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
ktizō
1) to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island
a) to found a city, colony, state
2) to create
a) of God creating the worlds
b) to form, shape, i.e. to completely change or transform


Both Greek and Hebrew words do not mean to make something from nothing. The word means form, shape, change, to make habitable.


So the Bible does not teach "something from nothing" nor does it teach that Eden was the first creation."
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
i didn't twist your statement...you said it was better for someone to remain undecided...

One of the definitions of twist is:

"An unexpected change in a process or a departure from a pattern, often producing a distortion or perversion:"​

You went from accusing me of implying yoda would remain in a "perpetual state of uncertainty" to "remain undecided". Big difference between the two terms. So yes, you did twist my statement.

like adam and eve?

Read the verses carefully. Adam and Eve's world was not wicked prior to their act of disobedience (Gen 1:31). Therefore we can conclude this passage would not apply.

it would be better to do nothing even though they were innocent free beings...we are hardly free to learn if a boundary of willful ignorance is in place.?

You are assuming "doing nothing" correlates to remaining undecided. They are actually two separate independent actions. One doesn't necessarily have to follow the other. Yoda can do her due diligence and still remain undecided (agnostic) or she can do nothing and simply decide to accept His existence on faith. She can also do her due diligence and reject God's existence or do nothing and come to the same conclusion on faith. The point is there's no correlation between inactivity and remaining undecided which is why it was excluded.

isn't that a sign of insecurity? for the sake of argument we were "created" with the ability to be curious and to question,

This is why, from God's point of view, there should be no feelings of insecurity about His existence. (Rom 1:20)

you seem to think that the truth will be absorbed by the process of osmosis...no it doesn't.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't. Osmosis is a physical process. The revelation of truth is spiritual.
 
Top