Continue the debate in here

General rules can be:

No more than 1000 words per post.
Wait until other person replies before posting again.
Only use references where you know where they came from and are relevant to the debate (include link to larger articles).
Avoid swearing.

What I believe:

• I believe what the Bible says is true.
• I believe that God exists and that He created the whole world in a 6 day creation (with Him having a rest on the 7th day).
• I believe that God’s creation was perfect before the fall.
• I believe satan was thrown out of Heaven.
• I do believe that the serpent in the garden of Eden was the devil.
• I believe the devil tempted Adam and Eve and they sinned; the fall.
• I believe that all the bad things in the world are the result of the fall. If the fall had not happened then everything would still be perfect.
• I believe that no matter what happens on this earth, God is still in control.
• I believe everybody is born in sin and is a sinner.
• I believe God sent Jesus to Earth.
• I believe that Jesus was a perfect man without sin and was also the Son of God.
• I believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world and rose again from the dead.
• I believe that anybody who repents, asks for forgiveness of their sins and puts their trust in Jesus can be saved and have eternal life. I believe this is a gift that I cannot earn by my own works. It’s not about what I do; it’s about what Jesus did for me when He died on the cross.
• I also believe God cannot ignore sin and there must be a consequence for everybody’s sin. The Bible is clear; you go to Hell if you’re not saved. And I can understand why people find this hard to accept.
• I also believe that no matter how good somebody thinks they are, the truth is: no human is good enough. We have all fallen short of the Glory of God and the way things originally where before the fall. Our only hope is Jesus.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tB7rAE6qIZk

As for the questions, they can be on any theological question:

Validity of Jesus
Validity of the Gospels
Religious dogma
Reliability of the bible in general

We know that Jesus did indeed exist:

There are a number of non Bible sources that mention Jesus.
Our BC/AD calender system would never have been if Jesus wasn't real.
Christianity spread rapidly, even under Roman persecution. Theres no way there would have been that spread of Christianity if Jesus wasn't real or if He had have been still dead after the crucifixion. Plus if He was still dead, the Romans should have shown the world the tomb with the body in it. But they never did that.

Validity of the Gospels:

We can rely on the Gospels. If they had been made up stories, all 4 writers would have made sure that their stories where all the same. That in turn would have made it look like the 4 Gospels writers worked together to come up with the story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

Christianity is unique in that it is based on the teachings of a living Saviour. Jesus is not dead. The fact that Jesus is alive means that He can in fact have a real meaningful impact in a persons life if they ask for forgiveness and put their trust in Him as their Lord and Saviour. Its Jesus' exclusive claims to be the only way to get to Heaven, that set Christainity apart from all other religions.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Humans are never, on their own strength, going to be good enough. Thats why we need a Saviour in the form of Jesus, who died a sinless death on the cross to pay for humanity's sin.

Humanity's problem is sin. Sin in a person can only be dealt through Jesus. Without Jesus, a human will go to Hell. Simple as that. And if that person didn't end up in hell, God wouldn't be a fair judge, because He would have to overlook that human's sin. The Bible is clear on the consequences of sin:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Therefore the death penalty was required for sin. And God paid that death penalty through the death of His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. But you must accept the gift of God (Salvation) through Jesus Christ before you can have eternal life and a place in Heaven when you die.

Seriously, no body deserves to go to Heaven, because we are all born as sinners and our only hope to solve the sin problem is Jesus. Sin is:

An act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will.
Estrangement from god.

Jesus Confirms Scripture:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=fad72c24e545c31bf8a4

Before begin by saying that I already know what you believe. To me and many others you are a fundamentalist, not the 'kill abortion doctors' type but close. Your first 15 lines of text could simply be replaced with 'I believe the bible is literally infallible.' Do you agree with this statement?

Assuming that you do, let us begin. The only thing I need to do if this assumption is correct is disprove any text in the bible. I think we can both agree that neither of us can prove nor disprove Gods existence. However if you God exists through the pages of an infallible book then that book can be tested.

I would prefer to begin with Genesis, but since you brought of the 'historic' Jesus I guess I will start there. You make the claim that 'there are a number of non Biblical sources that mention Jesus.' Where are your sources for this? Bear in mind, that if I were a respected historian and mentioned Achilles, that does not mean that he did in fact exist. How many of these 'sources' were eyewitnesses to a miracle or indeed even saw Jesus in the flesh?

Even Paul did not see the flesh of Jesus, nor does he know anything about the history of Jesus' life (i.e. Birth, Preaching in the temple etc) He does not even know where he came from. He never mentions Jesus 'of Nazareth' anywhere in his writings. (He is claimed to say it in Acts - written by Luke - but never in his own writings.)

The fact that some people use BC/AD means nothing, its like saying if Jimmy Page developed the electric battery instead of Alessandro Volta the 'Volts' would be called 'Pages' or something similar.

Christianity's rapid spread offers no evidence that Jesus was an actual person, no more than the Inquisition was proof that he didn’t exist. In biblical times, there were hundreds of supposed 'messiahs' in Palestine and Israel, the Romans only ever wanted a peaceful occupation. The messiah would upset the apple cart. Once they were dead that was it. There were no riots in the immediate aftermath of Jesus 'supposed' death. This next point ties in nicely in with the 'Validity of the Gospels'.

Matthew 27:51-53 :- 'And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.'

Now, can you spot what is wrong here? Neither of the other three gospels mention this event. Now weather or not the gospel writers conspired is irrelevant. If such an event happened then more records would have been kept. We are of course talking about the Jews and Romans, who were very good at documenting historical events. It seems that everyone in the Middle East forgot to record this event, despite the fact the dead '...appeared unto many.'

How can you explain the blatant omission of an important fact? It also raises the question of what made Jesus so special. Of the people who rose from the dead in this account, some must surely have lived either several more years, and they would have made some sort of big deal. Of course in those days literacy was uncommon, but this makes the stories (Gospels) they heard difficult to critically analyze.

One of the world leading New Testament Scholars Bart Ehrman, wrote a book called Misquoting Jesus. In it he examines the textual quality and validity of the New Testament.

‘Judged by a process of weighing external and internal evidence Mark 1:41 originally said that Jesus was angry, Luke did not originally contain 22:43-44 and Hebrews 2:9 originally read χωρις θεου 'without God' rather than χαριτι θεου 'by the grace of God'. These three variants are highly significant for the picture of Jesus that emerges from these books and yet, Ehrman notes, most of our modern translations are based on the wrong text in these cases. If the wrong text is selected a quite different picture of Jesus can emerge.’ - Originals That Matter, Misquoting Jesus

‘Three further categories of changes introduced into the text are considered. First, Jesus and even Paul, though still adhering to certain aspects of patriarchy, had promoted the role of women. A number of later textual alterations seek to restrict women's roles. Secondly, some secondary alterations to the text were anti-Jewish. Thirdly, some secondary alterations to the text were apologetically motivated, to protect Christianity from certain criticisms brought forward by pagans.’ - The Social Worlds of the Text, Misquoting Jesus

And in conclusion he says:'The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it'. The changes in the New Testament make it impossible to believe that God inspired the original words.

As I mentioned earlier I would have liked to examine the validity of the bible from the beginning. But as you can see, the only people who believe the Gospels are the perfect word of God are the fundamentalists like yourself. This in itself is not a problem, only for your own world view, but when fundamentalists begin to get involved in the affairs of countries, people and especially education then the problems arises. If your books had the evidence to back up the claims, then great lets follow that path, however the evidence is not there, and you’re afraid to look incase you don’t find it. (And you won’t)

I am not an atheist because I have a sin that I don’t want to let go, or I don’t want to worship a God. It is because the evidence that is presented is not evidence at all. There may well be a God in the cosmos, but it is not the God of the bible.

Before begin by saying that I already know what you believe. To me and many others you are a fundamentalist, not the 'kill abortion doctors' type but close. Your first 15 lines of text could simply be replaced with 'I believe the bible is literally infallible.' Do you agree with this statement?

Yep, I believe what the Bible has to say.

Assuming that you do, let us begin. The only thing I need to do if this assumption is correct is disprove any text in the bible. I think we can both agree that neither of us can prove nor disprove Gods existence.

What about creation? The Bible says God created the whole world. We can see this creation with our own eyes. Is this not proof enough of the existence of God? The Bible made a claim there and it is backed up with what we can see.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;

We can today see the birds and beasts for ourselves. This therefore proves the validity of the Bible's claims to God being responsible for the creation of the universe.

Can you prove that God didn't make the world?

I would prefer to begin with Genesis, but since you brought of the 'historic' Jesus I guess I will start there.

You can begin with Genesis if you want. I don't mind.

You make the claim that 'there are a number of non Biblical sources that mention Jesus.' Where are your sources for this?

Details of the sources can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I quote:

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,

There are two main reasons to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus and that later the passage was later edited by a Christian into the form we have now. There is a passage from a 10th century Arab historian named Agapius of Manbij who was a Christian. He cites Josephus as having written:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not desert his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.[48]
The text from which Agapius quotes is more conservative and is closer to what one would expect Josephus to have written. The similarities between the two passages imply a Christian author later removed the conservative tone and added interpolations.[49]
The other reason to assume Josephus did originally mention Jesus was advanced by J. B. Lightfoot. He claimed if a later Christian editor would have added the paragraph wholesale into Josephus' work then it is likely it would have been placed next to John the Baptist's account which it is not.

So it is clear to see that the Bible isn't the only historical source to mention Jesus.

Now, can you spot what is wrong here? Neither of the other three gospels mention this event.

It proves that the 4 Gospels writers didn't conspire together. If they had conspired together then they would have made sure that story was included in all 4 of their Gospels. The lack of the story in 3 Gospels means that 3 of the Gospel writers didn't know about that story, not that the story didn't occur. What about the feeding of the 5 thousand? It was mentioned in all 4 Gospels.

And in conclusion he says:'The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it'. The changes in the New Testament make it impossible to believe that God inspired the original words.

Thats why I recommend you to look at the original Greek and Hebrew Bible texts before you write off what the Bible has to say. To be honest, I do believe that some newer Bible translations are less reliable because of years of re translating. Thats why if you want a more accurate Bible I would recommend the King James over Eugene Peterson's Message Bible, for example. But please never write off anything the Bible has to say until you have checked the original texts.

If your books had the evidence to back up the claims, then great lets follow that path, however the evidence is not there, and you’re afraid to look incase you don’t find it. (And you won’t)

The evidence for creation is all around us.

I am not an atheist because I have a sin that I don’t want to let go, or I don’t want to worship a God. It is because the evidence that is presented is not evidence at all. There may well be a God in the cosmos, but it is not the God of the bible.

Well answer this question:

When you look at the Earth, the world and the whole universe, which would you be more likely to believe in; a God centered creation or the (man made) theory of evolution?

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=dc2a557d3193855f3773

‘What about creation? The Bible says God created the whole world. We can see this creation with our own eyes. Is this not proof enough of the existence of God? The Bible made a claim there and it s backed up with what we can see.’

First of all, I thought we were discussing the New Testament. Indeed we d see the world around us. Your statement makes no sense. If something is stated after the fact then it is certainly not a prophecy. For example, the bible was written after ‘Creation’, so to use is as proof that it is true is moronic. If however the bible was written before creation, then I would be impressed. If I said to you, ‘The tectonic plates are moving!’ it would not make it true. It is true, but not based on a statement, but on fact.

As for Genesis, it was written by Moses (supposedly), it is man made. He was not there when ‘Creation’ occurred.

‘Can you prove that God didn't make the world?’

Depends what you mean. Did God create the universe in 6 24 hour days? The yes I can prove God didn’t do it. How? Observable science. The Earth is still cooling after 4.6 billion years, hence the continents moving causing earthquakes etc. Radio metric dating also contradicts the young Earth opinion. You cannot prove God created the cosmos. And saying ‘The bible says so!’ is not evidence or proof.

Now on to the non biblical sources. You claimed there were many, yet you mentioned one. We have discussed this before. It is not authentic. The original text is:

‘Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when
Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.’

I am beginning to wonder if you even read what you post. You posted:

‘The text from which Agapius quotes is more conservative and is closer to what one would expect Josephus to have written. The similarities between the two passages imply a Christian author later removed the conservative tone and added interpolations’

Now, if you are using wikipedia as an acceptable source, then I win. Simply because your source backs up my statement, that Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum was in fact altered, by Christians. This not only shows the Testimonium Flavianum to not count as a historical source, but also that Christians have a habit of lying or if you like, bearing false witness.

Another problem that is clear to a critical thinker is, why would Josephus – A Devout Jew - call anyone a Christ/Messiah, and not follow him? The fact that Josephus was a devout Jew and not a Christian tends to suggest that he didn’t write the passage.

It proves that the 4 Gospels writers didn't conspire together. If they had conspired together then they would have made sure that story was included in all 4 of their Gospels. The lack of the story in 3 Gospels means that 3 of the Gospel writers didn't know about that story, not that the story didn't occur. What about the feeding of the 5 thousand? It was mentioned in all 4 Gospels.

I think your missing the point. The fact that the dead of Jerusalem got out of their graves and walked the streets, is (I don’t know about you) more impressive than feeding 5 thousand people. In both accounts (Feeding the 5,000 and the rising dead) none of the people directly involved felt the need to record any of it. It is only Jesus’ followers who claim he feed 5,000 people. None of the 5,000 recorded it.

The fact that the gospels contradict each other on the important points shows the bible is not perfect. Granted something as trivial as what Jesus was wearing can be forgiven, but to leave out possibly one of the greatest miracles and freaks of nature imaginable, well, that is just careless.

Thats why I recommend you to look at the original Greek and Hebrew Bible texts before you write off what the Bible has to say.

I could ask you the same question. Have your read the originals? I bet not. For if you did you would spot the following errors in the ‘Perfect Book’:

Moses crossed the ‘sea of Reeds’ not the Red sea (Yam Suph)

The messiah was to be born of a ‘Young Woman’ not Virgin. (Almah)

Lucifer is not satan but Jesus. (Shocking I know but read on!)

Isaiah 14:12

KJV :- ‘How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!’

NIV :- ‘How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

The King
James Version is the only bible that contains the word ‘Lucifer’

The original Hebrew word is ‘Heylel’. In 405 C.E Jerome translated it into latin ‘Lucifer’. The lasting for Lucifer is actually two words, ‘Lux’ (Light) ‘Ferous’ (To Carry). Therefore the name means Light Bearer/Bringer.

Unfortunately for fundamentalists like you this is not what the word Heylel means. This translation was used for 1000 odd years and resulted in Lucifer becoming the devil. When the bible was being translated into English the translators didn’t bother translating the original Heylel, but keep the well-known Lucifer. Not a good translation!

Now we come to Peter. 2 Peter 1:19 :- ‘We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:’

I’m sure you know that the New Testament is written in Greek. The two words ‘day’ and ‘star’ are translated form the original Greek ‘Phosphoros’ Phos (light) and Phero (To Bear or carry). Therefore the Greeks word Phosphoros means ‘Light bearer/bringer’

We both know that Peter was referring to Jesus. But the translators spotted the cock-up and changed the meaning (again) to day star, which comes from Rev 2:28 and 22:16

When you look at the Earth, the world and the whole universe, which would you be more likely to believe in; a God centered creation or the (man made) theory of evolution?

Neither!
Evolution (That so called 'man made' theory is exactly the same as the man made theory of Gravity and Germ Disease that cures your illnesses) does not explain the origins of life nor the origins of the cosmos, so your question is moot. Somone who knew what evolution was would not ask such a question (your ignorance is showing). However, I do not look at the cosmos and think ‘God did it’ (brain dead morons who cannot think say that), because that asks more questions, namely what made God?

First of all, I thought we were discussing the New Testament.

The whole Bible, religion in general and Christianity. Thats what we are discussing.

First of all, I thought we were discussing the New Testament. Indeed we d see the world around us. Your statement makes no sense. If something is stated after the fact then it is certainly not a prophecy. For example, the bible was written after ‘Creation’, so to use is as proof that it is true is moronic. If however the bible was written before creation, then I would be impressed. If I said to you, ‘The tectonic plates are moving!’ it would not make it true. It is true, but not based on a statement, but on fact.

God existed before creation. The whole of creation displays an order, as if it was designed and created to be the way it is. And who is the creator? God is.

As for Genesis, it was written by Moses (supposedly), it is man made. He was not there when ‘Creation’ occurred.

Moses had one on one conversations with God. Therefore if anybody was qualified enough to write about how God created the universe, Moses is. Its likely that Moses asked God how the world came into being and God probably told him. Anyhow, in those days stories where told from one generation to the next. The creation story was probably well known and Moses wrote it as part of Genesis. Moses met God in person. God was around before creation. Therefore we shouldn't be surprised that Moses knew the creation story and knew it in detail.

Depends what you mean. Did God create the universe in 6 24 hour days? The yes I can prove God didn’t do it. How? Observable science. The Earth is still cooling after 4.6 billion years, hence the continents moving causing earthquakes etc. Radio metric dating also contradicts the young Earth opinion. You cannot prove God created the cosmos. And saying ‘The bible says so!’ is not evidence or proof.

What about the fact that the Universe displays design like it was designed? If God didn't create the world, it just wouldn't look designed. Anyhow, how reliable is radio metric dating to the estimated ages mentioned (4.6 billion years)?

I think your missing the point. The fact that the dead of Jerusalem got out of their graves and walked the streets, is (I don’t know about you) more impressive than feeding 5 thousand people. In both accounts (Feeding the 5,000 and the rising dead) none of the people directly involved felt the need to record any of it. It is only Jesus’ followers who claim he feed 5,000 people. None of the 5,000 recorded it.

The fact that the gospels contradict each other on the important points shows the bible is not perfect. Granted something as trivial as what Jesus was wearing can be forgiven, but to leave out possibly one of the greatest miracles and freaks of nature imaginable, well, that is just careless.

Leave out? The miracle of the those people rising from the dead was mentioned. Anyhow we don't know how long those people where alive and who they appeared to. If they only lived a couple of weeks and appeared to mainly disciples, then how much non Biblical mentions of those events would there be?

Take any modern day event (say September 11th attacks). We both know that event occurred and could write about it, but we would both write about it in different ways, from different perspectives. Its the same with the Gospel writers. They are writing on their own perspectives and experiences of Jesus and His ministry.

Anyhow all 4 Gospel writers clearly agree on the fact that Jesus died and rose from the dead; the center focus of Christianity. If Jesus was still dead, Christianity would be dead.

The messiah was to be born of a ‘Young Woman’ not Virgin. (Almah)

Most young women are virgins.

Lucifer is not satan but Jesus. (Shocking I know but read on!)

Actually the passage in Isaiah 14:12 is referring to when satan was an angel in Heaven and got thrown out. Its not referring to Jesus. You need to read the verse in context;

http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=isa+14:12&t=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

The chapter goes on to talk about how satan wanted to rise and become better than God:

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

, but how he was thrown out of Heaven into hell:

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

The question is: why is lucifer only mentioned in the King James Bible? To me it looks like satan doesn't want that word used in other (more modern translations) so that people think Isaiah 14:12 refers to Jesus and not to satan.

made God?

God has always been. He existed before creation. That's whats really amazing about God.

God existed before creation. The whole of creation displays an order, as if it was designed and created to be the way it is. And who is the creator? God is.

Dave, you are not debating you are merly making assumptions. You claim that God existed before creation. On what evidence do you base this claim? Your provid none. You saying it does not make it so. The whole of creation does not display a perfect ord, order yes, but perfect it is not.

You again assume that the bible is correct and what Moses was saying was true, fair enough. However you need to be consistant.

Its likely that Moses asked God how the world came into being and God probably told him.

Again you make a baseless assumption. You assume that Moses asked God, but we have no record of him doing so, so this point should be disregarded. Not only do you make a baseless assumption, but you then go on to make another:

Anyhow, in those days stories where told from one generation to the next. The creation story was probably well known and Moses wrote it as part of Genesis.

Your language suggests that even you don't believe that Moses asked God about creation. Indeed stories were told from gneration to generation. However inevitably the stories change with time, until the original was lost. The Mesoptamians had a creation story and indeed flood stories very similar to the Judeao Christian one. It also predates it.

What about the fact that the Universe displays design like it was designed? If God didn't create the world, it just wouldn't look designed.

Dave, planes are designed to fly. However they were not designed to destroy skyscrapers, but they do a bloody good job. Beacuse something 'Looks' designed does not mean it is. Take the Creationist favourite, the eye. The eye is extermely complex. You would say it is God's creation, and it is perfectly designed. However, if you asked an optical engineer to design the eye, he would do a far better job. The human eye IS back to front and upside down. The nerves run from the font of the eye to the brain, a better design would be that they run from the back. Another problem the eye has is that it has a blindspot. This although complex is not designed. If it was it would be a terrible design.

Anyhow we don't know how long those people where alive and who they appeared to. If they only lived a couple of weeks and appeared to mainly disciples, then how much non Biblical mentions of those events would there be?

Granted we do not know how long these corpses were alive for, if we assume the account is true, then we know they appeared to many. Since only one person in the history of the cosmos wrote about it, it makes the account impossible.

...but we would both write about it in different ways, from different perspectives. Its the same with the Gospel writers. They are writing on their own perspectives and experiences of Jesus and His ministry.

If they are writing their own experiences then it becomes less and less historical. For example, a 9/11 survivour writes about being trapped in one of the buildings during the attack, yet another authour researches the hijackers, the architecture of the building and the geo-political status of the time, which one would you consider to be more historically reliable? The victim would be sociably relevant, but the 2nd authour would be a better historical account.

If Jesus was still dead, Christianity would be dead.

Dave you know yourself how deluded people can be. I bet you don't believe that Joeseph Smith recieved golden tablets from an angel, or that Muhammad flew on a winged horse. You and I know that both these experiences are false, yet millions/billions of people still believe. So to say that if Jesus were not real, or is dead then Christanity would follow is being intelluctually dishonest.

Most young women are virgins.

Indeed! Then if you want to go along that line you MUST assume that Joseph and Mary did have sex before Jesus was concieved. Because a virgin birth is biologically impossible.

Actually the passage in Isaiah 14:12 is referring to when satan was an angel in Heaven and got thrown out. Its not referring to Jesus. You need to read the verse in context;

The Jesus is Lucifer statement was not literal (as I don't believe in eaither). My point is - which you seem to have missed - is that if the biblical translators were consistant then in 2 Peter the same word is used to describe Jesus as Isaiah uses to describe 'Satan'.

Now that you know that the bible was not translated correctly, you should disregard it as perfect.

The question is: why is lucifer only mentioned the King James Bible? To me it looks like satan doesn't want that word used in other (more modern translations) so that people think Isaiah 14:12 refers to Jesus and not to satan.

We are looking for facts Dave, not what you think satan wants. And if satan can infiltrate the word of God then he must be more if not as equally powerful as God. But since neither exist, that is impossible.

I have proved to you that the bible YOU use is incorrectly translated, yet you still close your eyes and jam your fingers in your ears. I know you know what I said about the translatons are true, simply because you did not offer a rebuke, instead you offer your own half baked opinion. Which is not what we are looking for.

I'm not trying to convert you, I know it won't happen. You live in a Christian bubble, and as long as you are in that buble you will always believe what you are told, not what you learn.

God has always been. He existed before creation. That's whats really amazing about God.

May I refer you to the First Law of Thermodynamics.

In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#First_law

What that means is that no matter what destruction occours in the universe the same amount of energy remains. Energy is eternal!

To be honest Dave, this is not a debate. You are spouting out default Chritian doctrine and I am simply hitting them out of the park. If you want to claim that God created everything, then please provide evidence to back up your claim. But bear in mind, that the 'debate' may spin off into areas where you simply cannot compete, Evolution! You have a bible, stick to it!

Dave, you are not debating you are merly making assumptions. You claim that God existed before creation. On what evidence do you base this claim?

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Ephesians 1:4 clearly shows that God was around before the creation of the world.

1 Peter 1:20 tells us that God had plans in place before the creation. So we can clearly see that God was around before creation.

The whole of creation does not display a perfect ord, order yes, but perfect it is not.

Its not perfect because of the fall. Before the fall it was perfect, after the fall, perfect it is not. It is tainted by sin, which leads to evil, decay death and everything else that prevents the order being perfect.

Again you make a baseless assumption. You assume that Moses asked God, but we have no record of him doing so, so this point should be disregarded. Not only do you make a baseless assumption,

Yeh that was an assumption; not based on the Bible. Fair enough.

Your language suggests that even you don't believe that Moses asked God about creation.

I'm saying that Moses may have asked God personally about the creation, but if not then Moses would still have known about it because as a story it was pasted on to his generation and he would have known about it. And if the pasting on of the story failed, Moses could still have known about the creation through divine inspiration, like John who wrote Revelation when he saw the things he saw. Don't worry, God obviously wanted the creation story in the Bible, so He made sure Moses knew about it and wrote it into Genesis.

However inevitably the stories change with time, until the original was lost.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That statement clearly tells us that God created the heaven and the earth. How much change in that statement could there have been with time? Very little.

The eye is extermely complex. You would say it is God's creation, and it is perfectly designed. However, if you asked an optical engineer to design the eye, he would do a far better job. The human eye IS back to front and upside down. The nerves run from the font of the eye to the brain, a better design would be that they run from the back. Another problem the eye has is that it has a blindspot. This although complex is not designed. If it was it would be a terrible design.

A better job? Hardly. Show me a man made object that is as effective as a natural human eye to the point that it can be used instead of human eyes and provide the same level of eyesight and functionality of a natural human eye? There isn't an object man made that is that good. And yes recently scientists have attached wires to the back of a person's eye to the brain and given a blind person some sight. But that eyesight is rubbish in comparison to a real human eye.

Indeed! Then if you want to go along that line you MUST assume that Joseph and Mary did have sex before Jesus was concieved. Because a virgin birth is biologically impossible.

The virgin birth is possible when its conceived by the Holy Ghost. Jesus had to be conceived by the Holy Ghost to be a perfect human.

Now that you know that the bible was not translated correctly, you should disregard it as perfect.

The fact that it may not have been translated correctly, doesn't prevent the original texts being perfect.

What that means is that no matter what destruction occours in the universe the same amount of energy remains. Energy is eternal!

It still had to have a beginning.

To be honest Dave, this is not a debate. You are spouting out default Chritian doctrine and I am simply hitting them out of the park. If you want to claim that God created everything, then please provide evidence to back up your claim. But bear in mind, that the 'debate' may spin off into areas where you simply cannot compete, Evolution! You have a bible, stick to it!

Let me remind you that you requested the debate to be continued. Also I'm the one who did all the donkey work setting up this forum.

To be honest, I like debating. Its interesting.

If you want to claim that God created everything, then please provide evidence to back up your claim.

Yeh I'll have to do that in subsequent posts as I investigate and learn even more about the wonders of God and His amazing creation.

Without God, life has no purpose, and without purpose, life has
no meaning. Without meaning, life has no signficance or hope.
.. The greatest tragedy is not death, but life without purpose.

-- Rick Warren

Let me start by saying that if you want to use the bible for evidence, then you must prove that it is the perfect word of God. You have yet to do so. I on the other hand, have shown you that the bible you use for inspiration is incorrectly translated, even the originals do not tell the same story.

Its not perfect because of the fall. Before the fall it was perfect, after the fall, perfect it is not. It is tainted by sin, which leads to evil, decay death and everything else that prevents the order being perfect.

Again, here you are making a statement of fact without any evidence. You cannot prove there is death in the world because of the ‘fall’ without referring to the bible, which we have seen to be fallible and man made. Whereas we know that death occurs in the world naturally. Because of various influences, namely the Germ Theory of Disease.

Yeh that was an assumption; not based on the Bible. Fair enough.

Here you agree that you made a baseless assumption. Yet here:

I'm saying that Moses may have asked God personally about the creation, but if not then Moses would still have known about it because as a story it was pasted on to his generation and he would have known about it.

You make another. You do not know that it was passed down form generation to generation.

And if the pasting on of the story failed, Moses could still have known about the creation through divine inspiration, like John who wrote Revelation when he saw the things he saw. Don't worry, God obviously wanted the creation story in the Bible, so He made sure Moses knew about it and wrote it into Genesis.

Again, another assumption.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That statement clearly tells us that God created the heaven and the earth. How much change in that statement could there have been with time? Very little.

Indeed that is what it tells us. But then again so does the Qur’an:

"the heavens and the earth were joined together
as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30)

"turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said
to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said:
'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (41:11)

Why should we believe that it was the Judeo-Christian god who created the world and not the Islamic one?

Or the Greeks: http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-greece.htm

Hindus: http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm

Chineese: http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-china.htm

Or even the Babylonians: http://mythicjourneys.org/bigmyth/myths/english/2_babylonian_full.htm

The human eye is incredibly complex, as you know. No, man has yet to make a better eye, but what man has done is overcome nature to make blind people see (even if just a little). My point was not that man could build a better eye than nature (they will soon) but it was that an eye designed by an human engineer would be better designed and more efficient than that produced by natural selection. Now, if you claim that man is better than all of the animals in the world, then explain how the eye of an octopus is better than the human eye? Keep in mind that it contains no blind spot, unlike the human eye.

Don’t blame it on the ‘fall’, because if animals were immune from the ‘fall’ then they would not be susceptible to the Germ theory, which as we see in England, is far from the case.

The virgin birth is possible when its conceived by the Holy Ghost. Jesus had to be conceived by the Holy Ghost to be a perfect human.

Ok so you admit that you perfect book says ‘young woman’ and not virgin. However, if Jesus had to be conceived by a virgin then, he was not real, because nowhere does it state that Mary was a virgin. Now that we know Mary was not a virgin, then we have to conclude (as virgin births are impossible) that she was not a virgin. You believe that Jesus was perfect and he only achieved this through parthenogenesis, but nowhere is a virgin mention in the bible. No virgin, no Jesus!

The fact that it may not have been translated correctly, doesn't prevent the original texts being perfect.

It may be perfect but the story is completely changed. Moses crossed the sea of Reeds (not much of a miracle walking through a swamp), even then there is no record of the Jews fleeing Egypt.

The Jewish messiah was to be born of a young woman. Not a virgin in sight. If Jesus was born of a virgin then he was not the messiah as it did not fulfill the prophecy.

And Jesus and Satan are referred to by the same name (light-bearer).

So these three FACTS alone show that the bible is imperfect. And if the bible is imperfect, as you know, then the creation story is exposed as a myth, along with the rest of the bible (not entirely).

It still had to have a beginning.

No it didn’t. If something had a beginning, then it would not be eternal, but more infinite (without end but with beginning) whereas eternal, has neither a beginning nor an end.

Now a challenge, I have shown the bible to be lased with errors, and yet you blindly disregard them, despite the fact that you acknowledge that it is badly translated and that the gospel writers along with non-biblical scholars do not mention amazing events. You claimed that there are many non-biblical scholars that mention Jesus, yet you only presented one, Josephus, which I have exposed as a hoax, and you obviously agree or else you would have refuted my claims. But where are the other non-biblical scholars that mentions Jesus (and lived at the same time, no second hand accounts). A historian who mentions followers of Christ is not proof of a Christ, only proof that there are people who followed someone called Christ.

If you are going to use the bible as evidence, it must be proven to be reliable. The Qur’an is ‘proof’ of the existence of Allah. Why? Because it says it is. But you don’t see that as true. Yet you use the same excuse for the bible.

Things that reinforce the Bible and make it more reliable:

• The Bible isn't the best selling book of all time for no reason.
• If the Bible wasn't able to transform people's lives, then there wouldn't have been the the level of persecution of Bible translators throughout History that there was. People who wanted an English Bible for common people to read. If the Bible was made up and totally false, then there is no way that it could have had the life transforming impact it was having, and translators would have faced considerably less persecution.
• There are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about Jesus and Jesus fulfilled them in the New Testament. The Old Testament manuscripts where definitely written well before the New Testament manuscripts. So how could the writers of the Old Testament have known about events of Jesus' life if the Old Testament wasn't divinely inspired? If the Bible was false, the Old Testament writers couldn't have written prophecies about Jesus that later came true.

Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

• There are more manuscripts for the Bible than for any other historical book.

I quote (from here: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html ):

In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

• Archeology backs up what the Bible has to say:

I quote (from here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html ):

Here are some examples:
The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

Why should we believe that it was the Judeo-Christian god who created the world and not the Islamic one?

Because the Bible claims there is in only one true and living God:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

1Corinthians 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

So it had to be the God of the Bible who created the world.

Now, if you claim that man is better than all of the animals in the world, then explain how the eye of an octopus is better than the human eye? Keep in mind that it contains no blind spot, unlike the human eye.

If humans weren't better than all other animals then they wouldn't be able to control other animals. The fact that we are made in God's image and have a soul sets us apart from all other creatures on this Earth, including an octopus.

The Bible isn't the best selling book of all time for no reason.

The Da Vinci Code is one of the world’s bestselling books, as is Harry Potter. Does that make them historically reliable? No!

If the Bible wasn't able to transform people's lives, then there wouldn't have been the the level of persecution of Bible translators throughout History that there was. People who wanted an English Bible for common people to read. If the Bible was made up and totally false, then there is no way that it could have had the life transforming impact it was having, and translators would have faced considerably less persecution.

Again, this does not make the bible historically accurate. The Qur’an has transformed countless lives. That does not mean the Qur’an is a historic book either. History is not the pages of a book but what is written on them.

There are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about Jesus and Jesus fulfilled them in the New Testament.

The messiah was supposed to be born of a ‘young woman’ however your Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin. This prophecy was not fulfilled. Nostradamus is claimed to have prophesied countless of historic events, yet you do not see him as inspired by God.

There are more manuscripts for the Bible than for any other historical book.

And this means what exactly? Nothing! Writing something down 12 billion times does not make it historic.

Archeology backs up what the Bible has to say:

Stop being a moron. The names of places may be real but that does not mean the stories are. Paris exists, but that doesn’t mean that Da Vincis Mona Lisa contains hidden codes about Jesus. Imagine in 10,000 years time, archeologists discover the remains of New York. The also discover the remains of the Empire State building, does that mean the story of King Kong is true? Yes there was a kingdom of David, but it was a very small kingdom. Nothing like what the bible mentions.

Because the Bible claims there is in only one true and living God:

So does the Qur’an!

If humans weren't better than all other animals then they wouldn't be able to control other animals. The fact that we are made in God's image and have a soul sets us apart from all other creatures on this Earth, including an octopus.

You are wrong on several points here. First, my point was that you cannot blame the blindness in the human eye on the ‘fall’ of man. Secondly, humans do not have control over all of the animals in the world. We cannot control what happens in the depths of the oceans, nor can me make near extinct pandas mate, and we certainly cannot stop disease and germs. If anything bacteria has control over us!

And finally your remark towards souls, prove it? Again you make a statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Yet again you fail to address any of my points in the previous posts. This shows your lack of research. You have yet to produce any non-biblical scholars, nor contradict my translation of originals scripture argument and certainly not addressed the validity of the bible (not just as a book, but as a historical document)!

Better luck next time!

Hi guys!

William, I have just started reading your posts. You have studied this a lot more than me, so I find your posts v. interesting.

You may have already said this in some later post; however, until I get there, do you mind me asking...

1. What term best describes your beliefs about the existence or non existence of God? Atheist, agnostic etc.
   
2. Which theory do you think best explains the origins of the world and man?
   

I guess it is easy enough to figure it out, but I just want to know for sure instead of assuming.