ABRAHAMIC GOD of the BIBLE, is the Creator

Exactly. And in writing these stories around places they had heard of, and perhaps even been to, they made errors which show that they were not recording actual events involving actual people. Just an historical novel. What a shame people don't read 'outside' the Bible.

 

It doesn't help that there are individuals on this end of history trying to fit things into a preferred narrative instead of being governed by what they discover.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

Funny.
There will be nothing credible to back it up, to you.
Most, if not all, who say you're wrong, is because the source of your claims to them is not credible.
So everyone is stuck with non credible sources per the other side. And nothing gets changed.

BTW - you have been disproved withing the 1st 3 pages of this thread.
You had to make assumptions in order to make your claim. That is a fail, on its own.

 

"The Creator Has Intimate Knowledge of His Creation," is the point of my evidence(s).
It's the evidences, that are proven by science.

As an example:

5. The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation: STRETCHING UNIVERSE post # 57

Stretching universe, is the evidence that I'm giving. It is proven by science.



As for archeological findings - I'd take the archeologists and historians words over yours, sorry.
They have the authority because they know what they're talking about.



Yes, testimonies aren't science-proven, however that doesn't mean they're negated.
It just means that it's beyond the realms of science. Like I've said, science has its own limitation. That's why the National Academy of Sciences points to religious experience as another means of learning and understanding the world around us.

Testimonies of miracles, or God-experience(s), fall under religious experience.

 

I went and looked at post 57. That some might refer to the universe as stretching, instead of expanding, doesn't scientifically prove every happenstance that the term stretching is used. In the first quote, the reference was to colors stretching across the sky, not that the universe was stretching. That aside, this crazy leap you've made, is not proof the universe was created, had a creator, had one creator, had the exact creator you think it did, or that this creator did it on purpose and knew every detail of it. That leap is not proven by science because a scientist uses a phrase to describe something that is actually scientific and the bible uses the same word to describe something else, merely as an aesthetic or an adverb.

And I judge by what is said, and what can be shown, not by someone's title.

Testimony is notoriously unreliable, so unless a person's testimony can at least be corroborated, it's useless, except to people who are already inclined to believe in it. Even corroborated, without evidence of what was supposedly experienced, it won't lend anything substantial to a scientific inquiry. Now, if the National Academy of Sciences uses religious experiences as anything, that's news to me, but then again, I'm not a scientist, so if you could be so kind as to point out where they claim to do this or the history of them doing this, that would be neighborly of you.

Well, to be fair, those fall under religious claims, because frankly, a person can claim they had an experience when they didn't, or they can have an experience and get a whole lot wrong about it. This is why testimony is so unreliable.

 

This is what NASA says!

You better go back to post #57 and read again.

That in itself is a big problem, isn't it? Because you don't understand what's being said!

Bye-bye.

 

So you support NASA as authority? If so....what's your view on climate change?

 

NASA might have said this about the universe, but they said nothing about quotes from the bible.

No need.

I understand very clearly what you're trying to pull off, and I explained why I'm not buying.

You take care of yourself.

 

What's climate change got to do with this?


Don't you atheists rely on science to come up with facts? What was it that Dawkins was saying about science?
Suddenly.....you don't accept science as an "authority."

Well....if you don't even rely on science, you're pretty much bonked, aren't you?
In other words, you admit that you believe in myths, and pulling stuffs out of thin air!

 

YOU cited NASA as "authority".....do you agree with them on the reality of climate change?

Or do you just "cherry-pick" what NASA says and whether or not to believe it?

 

Starting from the position that all of the Bible was authored by God is your first flawed assumption. Not only do you have no clue whether or not your assumption is true, the fact of the matter is that some things the Bible have been shown to be patently false.

The other problem is that even if God did personally author books of the Bible parts of those books have changed so much over time that the meaning has completely changed from what was originally written in older documents. Which version do we then choose ? The old or the new. Which "Bible" is the authentic word of God ?

We also have the problem if which religious text to choose. Many were not included. Some texts like Revelations was not considered "cannon" then later made cannon and so on. Some of the texts included in the original Bible were later removed. Did God make a mistake the first go around ?

Not to mention the many contradictions. In the OT God is a Genocidal flip fopper who says one thing and then does another. Then in the NT he forgets many of the Old laws and sings a completely different tune.

Given that you have know way of knowing whether or not "any" of the texts in the Bible are authored by God, that we have know way of knowing which are authentic and which are not, which passages have been changed and which are still the same, and the many other problems, your "assumption" that the whole thing is God's word is grasping at straws.