Believing in the God of the Bible has its problems..

Screen Shot 2018-03-01 at 18.18.40

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, God

35 replies

  1. Trouble is…….the God of the OT is portrayed as unitary and not triune.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. For the one that is interested in the debate between Licona and Ehrman
    http://ksutv.kennesaw.edu/play.php?v=00030107

    Like

    • Damn the spankies Licona got from Ehrman!!!!!!!!!!!
      OUCH!!!!

      Like

    • Thank you!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dr. Ehrman schooled Licona in that debate over, and over, and over, and over…….and over, and over, and over, and over, and over…………….and…. over, and over, and over, and over, and over,,,,and over, and over, and over, and over, and over……..and…….

      Seriously, I thought Licona would not ever stop saying “…and over, over, and over, and over, and over…” as if that is convincing anyone.

      It is clear that no piece hard of evidence will convince Licona, and it is clear that he is not truly interested in the truth.

      Or is it just the fact that Licona prefers not to displease his financial benefactors by agreeing with Ehrmans irrefutable evidence that the Bible is not historically reliable.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I’ve just finished watching the debate. It was very interesting. Also, It’s very good source for me to develop my English, especially with the brilliance of dr. Ehrman when he presents his ideas! I mean OMG! 🙂
      I hope to reach to this level in (English.)

      Also, what was Mike doing? Seriously, what …was …he… doing? That was a typical intellectual suicide.
      It’s the mentality of christians’ trinity itself which literally tells us that there are 3 gods, yet they are just one god!
      Then he’s really galling when he said to Bart ” you’re putting words on my mouth”!😫
      Well… then speak clearly instead of this vapid dance that you were doing!

      Regarding, the “argument” of over and over…over and over…, it’s very surprising that Jesus didn’t say even once that he is God in very clear statement.
      Moreover, Mike said “Like any good teacher, Jesus taught in a way formulated rememberable, so he taught in parables, he used rhetoric such as a hyperbolical language to shock his listeners ……We don’t forget these things…parable of the prodigal son. Who forgets that? Right?”
      Yes …Right, Mike!
      So when Jesus was taught over and over…over and over….over and over that he didn’t come to abolish the law, why did Paul forge that by saying “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man” ? Notice that Paul is considered the earliest authors in the NT.

      Did Paul forget this over and over…over and over….teaching of Jesus when Jesus said this to his disciples
      “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ?
      Well….It seems he did because Paul said “And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me”

      In addition, Mike was talking absurdity. Who said that Mark was a disciple of Peter? Or John, the disciple of Jesus, is the one who wrote the gospel of John ?

      However, Mike said something very interesting! He said “the metanarrative is incapable of being confirmed by historians. We don’t simply have the tools to verify. It doesn’t mean it’s false, it just means as historians we cannot verify it”
      Ok…that exactly what we are saying to you when you ask muslims about the crucifixion. In fact, we have presented an alternative possible story for (modern historians) to examine even. Yet christians couldn’t do that with Jesus’ claims about his deity.

      Indeed this debate makes me appreciate the science of hadith more. Don’t get me wrong. I’ve always been proud for this blessing from Allah to this Ummah. But this debate makes me to feel proud for our islamic schools and our history as Ummah. This art is restricted to this nation (i.e. the Islamic nation). It has not ever been known before Islam. There’re remarkable similarities to what dr Erman says in his filed and what the Islamic scholars had already did in hadith studies since more than 1000 years ago. the matter of reading narrative horizontally or how to know if this a comment by the narrator…etc.
      I mean let’s talk about the biography written Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq was born after 70 years of prophet’s death. We know where he lived and when he died. Also, Anas bin Malik, the companion of the prophet pbuh died after 80 years of the prophet’s death, so Ibn Isahq definitely saw those who saw those companions. Yet Islamic scholars were very very critical dealing with Ibn Ishaq’ writing although he named his chains to the prophet.
      Mike was talking that Mark was a companion for Peter with no any singe evidence for that, yet he considered his writings to be the words of God Himself!
      On the other hand in our Ummah we know that Al Zuhri was a companion of the companions of the prophet pbuh, who he was, and where he lived, yet when he said something which he did not elevate to a companion, the Islamic scholars simply stop to accept that. Yes they valued that saying, but they never elevated that to be considered a saying from a companion, let alone to be from the prophet himself. In fact, there are books written just for this kind of narrations called ( Al maraseel).
      As dr. Ehrman said, it takes years to see that ( he meant the field of criticism and its results). In the filed of hadith studies, it takes years to taste that, so I really don’t appreciate when some muslims talk about Al Bukhari and Muslim without any background in this field of studies. Those pioneer scholars were talking almost like what dr Ehrman says about the filed of criticism in general.

      Finally, I hope to watch a debate between Shabir Ally & Bart Ehrman. I hope from muslims to work in that.

      Like

  3. He did not say that unless christians have a problem with the God of the OT either explicitly or implicitly, which is not new in the history of christianity, and this’s the result when you carve your idol as you desire before you start looking for the evidences.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The true god judges and issues punishment based on his power of omniscience – this means that god (not allah) is intimately acquainted with all of his creation through all possible outcomes of their lives, knowing how they will act in any potential life. There really is no moral dilemma here.

    The quran plagiarizes the story of Noah and the flood in which allah drowns innocent baies.

    Your argument is an embarrassing case of muslims shooting themselves in the foot.

    Like

    • Brian.

      Drowning is different from people killing babies. When a baby drowns, no cop/police will arrest anyone but one someone kills a baby, he(that person) will be arrested and punished and the Bible said the person must be killed. We will all die in one way or the other but we(people) are forbidden to kill innocent people according to the Bible.

      Islamophobes used the killing of innocent by others against Islam, and that is what can be found in the Bible.

      There was mass shooting by white extremist in the USA but the conservatives who call themselves Christians are the ones blocking tougher laws against gun possession. One Church in the USA asked its members to bring their assault rifles to be blessed in a Church and they did citing Biblical verses. No one said anything against it except few protesters out side the Church.

      Imagine a Mosque asking its members to bring assault riffle to the Mosque for blessing like how this Church did. All the media in the world including Donald Trump would have spent months playing the video and bashing Islam. What a triple, quadruple standards?

      Like

    • With all due respect, I asked you to go back to school and learn what Allah means. Arab Christians have in their Bible Allah as God. Jews call God Eli, Ela, Eloh, Elohim and Jesus called his God Eloi, Eli in the Bible like the Arabic Ilaha, Ila, Ili etc. But Jesus spoke Aramaic and in Aramaic Elaha, Allaha is what Jesus called his God. You insult Allah, you insult Jesus’s God. As simple as that.

      Proof:

      No body called them terrorists and called Christianity evil. Had this happened in a Mosque with Iman’s blessing, all Muslims would have been insulted. Where is Jay Smith?

      Liked by 1 person

    • intellect

      Your god murders innocent babies by drowning them – he alone was responsible since he sent the flood. Muslims keep shooting themselves in the foot.

      Like

    • The Biblical story of Noah is where almost all of humanity dies because of the world flood, because he somehow “regret” creating humanity, as if he’s dumb and not in fact All Knowing in what he has created.

      Bible: “The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.”

      The Quranic story had only disbelievers and evildoers among Noah’s people die because of the local flood.

      Quran: “But they denied him, so We saved him and those who were with him in the ship. And We drowned those who denied Our signs. Indeed, they were a blind people.”

      Please learn the correct story preserved by God and not the one corrupted by humans. It’s more like you’re the one who shot your own foot.

      Liked by 1 person

    • stopbelievinginfakestories

      The quranic version of Noah and the flood sounds exactly like the kind of story unbiased scholars say quranic stories sound like – poorly understood, mythologized plagiarisms of christian and jewish traditions and biblical truths. The quranic version of the flood is a half-baked, cliff-notes version that exposes the quran as a book of nonsense full of vague references to biblical truths that are retold with mistakes and embellishments.

      In fact, the quranic versions of biblical truths are the greatest evidence destroying the so-called hadith “science” – if quranic reciters fail miserably to accurately recite biblical truths, then the chains of hadith are almost certainly embellished and corrupted.

      Still, you are still left with the fact that your allah drowned innocent babies and that gunshot wound in your foot is starting to fester.

      Like

    • Sorry, you’re just pulling stuff out of your ass. Give verses and evidences or just stay quiet. Instead of making a logical fallacy of an “Appeal to Authority”. Open quran.com and search for noah and see for yourself.

      The real story is that God only let the evildoers die in the flood. There is no verse that said God killed babies in Noah’s flood. In the real preserved story Noah’s son did die, but his son was an adult who chose to deny God’s warning. No babies die in the Quranic story of the flood. Only disbelievers and evildoers. READ THE QURAN. Don’t just reply without evidence.

      Only in the corrupted Biblical story, only in the Biblical flood, where you can seen innocent babies die along with the rest of humanity. The God of the Bible lacks omniscience and REGRETS creating humans, as in the verse I provided. READ YOUR BIBLE. What do you have to say about that? You said that God is omniscient, but how come he was able to have regret. He should have known the nature of humankind because he is All Knowing!
      God cannot regret, and cannot be dumb like he is portrayed in Genesis. Thus the Bible is false.

      Like

    • stopbelievinginfakestories

      The quran is often incoherent, unclear, and requires a mere created being – mohammed – to “explain” it. This is an internal contradiction in the quran that claims that the words of allah (“god”, LOL) and both clear yet requires explanation from one of his creatures.Some god this is that thinks his words are clear but need explanation at the same time.

      The quranic story is half-baked – the kind of telling that you would expect when camel traders try to retell stories they heard from a people speaking a different language, but who get much of it wrong in the retelling.

      The real story of the flood is that only noah and his family were saved – a half-baked plagiarized version that misses more than it accurately conveys doesn’t change that.

      This has huge ramifications for hadith science – if muslims cannot retell a simple biblical story accurately, why should we believe that they are capable of accurately conveying narrations?

      Like

    • No verses, no evidences, just empty baseless accusations.

      THERE IS NO WORLD FLOOD, and thus no dead innocent babies, in the Quran. READ IT YOURSELF. Only the Bible states a world flood that kills innocent babies and almost all of humanity because God felt regret. READ IT YOURSELF.

      The claim that you put forward is ONLY IN THE BIBLE.

      Put up evidence, or shut up. Also, “plagiarized”? You keep using that word. It real doesn’t mean what you think it means.

      Liked by 1 person

    • BTW, I was here to respond to your lying claim about Noah’s flood killing babies. With the provided verse as evidence, it’s now clear that Noah’s flood in the Quran only affected the disbelievers and evildoers.

      I have kicked the ball into your original goalpost.

      As for the new shifted goalpost in your reply, well the Biblical story has an nonsensical point about God feeling regret and thus killing everyone. Sorry, but that’s no God. And thus the fake story is the one in the Bible

      And do try actually reading, instead of repeating talking points of some random person you heard from, it’s simple and easy if you try. Abdul Haleem is the easiest flowing English translation for me.

      Liked by 1 person

    • stopbelievinginfakestories

      The quran is completely vague and unclear about what kind of flood took place – you are changing the words of your god by claiming certainty. Again, this illustrates how unclear the quran is and why your god feels the need to contradict himself and claim that the quran is both clear and in need of a creature to explain it.

      surah 71:27

      “For, if Thou dost leave (any of) them, they will but mislead Thy devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones.”

      So much for innocent babies in islam – begetting wicked offspring contradicts the imams. Who should we believe, your god or the men who try to explain his vague words?

      The entire sura 71 is a stilted and vague read. – it is hard to gauge who is talking to whom and who has done what to whom. BY contrast the bible provides a background, a clear narrative, and a clear teaching whilst the quran is vague.

      Like

    • “The quran plagiarizes…”
      Alright, another braindead crosstian.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “BY contrast the bible provides a background, a clear narrative, and a clear teaching whilst the quran is vague.”

      Except that the Bible’s “background” is full of mistakes and contradictions. Not very impressive, I’m afraid. By actual contrast, the Quran provides a clear moral lesson whereas the Bible gives a confused chronological narrative. The Quran’s Author is not interested in giving a long and meaningless chronological story. He wants us to understand the key points and morals and learn from them to change ourselves. For more on this, you can read my article on the flood story:

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/noah-and-the-flood-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/

      Liked by 1 person

    • In his a recent debate Shabbir Ally clarified that the Bible presents itself as a historical narrative document, while the Qur’an does not present it self in the same way.

      Therefore, the burden of proof is placed upon the Bible – if it does not meet with historical research and findings then it cannot be deemed to be historical reliable, in which case, neither is it a divinely revealed book.

      In contrast, the Qur’an does not present itself as a historical narrative. It simply references or relates stories that we may or may not be already be familiar with and simply asks us to draw clear moral lessons, or highlights an important theological point.

      In regard to the above conversation, if there is no historical evidence that the entire world flooded, then the Biblical account is not historically reliable, and therefore, not likely to have been divinely revealed. Whereas, the Qur’an simply references the story of Noah in order to teach theological and moral lessons.

      We are free to believe the Qur’anic account of Noah’s flood as actual history or not, either way the Qur’an still stands as divine revelation. We don’t have the same freedom with the Bible, either it is historically reliable in its narrations or it is Historically unreliable, false and not divinely revealed.

      Like

    • Ibn Issam

      The quran’s reference to Noah has little meaning unless you have prior knowledge of the biblical story of the flood – much of the quran is the same. Vague references to stories and people from an entirely different culture that would have little meaning unless you first know the bible. Thus, the quran instead of being the book that brings clarity,is a book that confuses previous scriptures by inaccurately retelling them.

      As for there being no evidence of global flood – that’s irrelevant. The moral teaching of the bible is what counts and that is true. Since we’re on the subject of evidence, can you show me the evidence that mohammed split the moon in half?

      Like

  5. I bet Christians secretly wish Muslims had all this trouble –

    Old God vs New God

    Three Gods vs. One God

    God dies … doesn’t die … dies …. doesn’t Oh dear

    Liked by 3 people

  6. “Except that the Bible’s “background” is full of mistakes and contradictions.”

    Care to provide examples?

    All the koran can do is tell us ad absurdum that the messenger killed the infidels. The koran can’t even tell us if the flood was local or otherwise.

    Like

  7. Bluffing as usual. All you can do is hide behind your links. Scaredycat Faiz.

    Like

    • Hahahaha, what’s the matter Ignoramus? Afraid of a little reading to demolish your asinine beliefs? Scaredy cat Iggy. There is no need to repeat what has already been said. Now stop being lazy and writing meaningless comments and read the link I gave.

      Like

  8. You are just parroting a nobody’s opinion. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

    Like

  9. Keppler and Newton both agreed with Archbishop Ussher that the earth was created at 4000 BC. Who is your guy? Based on the biblical data.

    Like

    • Add 6 zeroes you might get close

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oh boy. Making appeals to authority now? Just because Keppler and Newton believed the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so doesn’t make them right. They didn’t have the scientific data we have now. This data is conclusive that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, but rather more than 4,000,000,000 years old. On top of that, the universe is at least 13,000,000,000 years old.

      If you want to appeal to authority, I can give you some names too. And it’s not just the names of evolutionists like Stephen Hawking. Intelligent design (ID) proponents like Dr. Stephen Meyer also believe this because the scientific data is conclusive. For example, he mentions that some of the first animals to appear on Earth did so during the Ediacaran period (hence they are called the Ediacaran fauna), which he dates to “about 570-565 million years ago” (Darwin’s Doubt, p. 80). So, among the first life forms to appear on Earth existed more than 500 million years ago. This is based on radiocarbon dating of fossils.

      So, if the Bible says that Earth is 6,000 years old (which it does), then it is falsified by the scientific evidence. Now, because of this, you have a choice to either grow up and discard the fairy tales in your Bible or remain stubborn and ignorant of the facts. Face it: the Bible is wrong to say that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

      Like

    • By the way Ignoramus, Newton was not a trinitarian. He didn’t see any evidence for your 3-in-1 god in the Bible, so appealing to him does not make things better for you.

      Like

Trackbacks

  1. Believing in the God of the Bible has its problems.. | kokicat

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: