Creation

Why would God need a creator? If He created the universe, then clearly His powers and attributes are beyond our understanding.

Why does the earth need a creator? If a person can say God doesn't need
a creator, why can't another person say that earth doesn't need a creator?

And, if you claim that 'His powers and attributes are beyond our understanding,'
how can you claim that the Bible is the definitive revelation of God. If He is
beyond us, and the Bible is accessible, then we have a contradiction.

If God is infinite, and the Bible is finite, how can this be the complete
reveleation?

Nemesio

Why does the earth need a creator?

Because we know it hasn't always existed. It isn't conjecture.

If a person can say God doesn't need
a creator, why can't another person say that earth doesn't need a creator?

Again, the earth is finite because it is. It doesn't really matter what a person says, it matters what the truth is. If the truth is that God created the universe, then it isn't anyone saying he doesn't need a creator, it's a fact, because He is outside of time and thus outside of the rules inherent therein.

And, if you claim that 'His powers and attributes are beyond our understanding,'
how can you claim that the Bible is the definitive revelation of God.

What do you mean by definitive? Do you mean it defines Him completely? That isn't the case. Do you mean what it does define is completely correct? That's the case because He entered His creation and spoke to His creation.


If He is
beyond us, and the Bible is accessible, then we have a contradiction.

How so? No one is saying the Bible itself is God, or then it would be a contradiction. We're saying the Bible is absolutely correct about the aspects of God He presented to us in it.

If God is infinite, and the Bible is finite, how can this be the complete
reveleation?

Again, where are you getting complete revelation? Any Christian can tell you we do not claim to know everything about God. The Bible gives us enough so that we can reach the place where it's possible to learn more about Him.

Ok. I was unclear. Let me rephrase:

The universe is infinite in dimension. Some scientists believe that
it is of infinite age; the big bang was one of a cycle of big bangs
that occur every xxx billions of years. For them, it is without
space or time. According to those scientists, it has always existed.

Why, then, does this entity which is without space and time need
a creator, but God -- an entity without space or time -- does not
need one.

What do you mean by definitive? Do you mean it defines Him completely? That isn't the case. Do you mean what it does define is completely correct? That's the case because He entered His creation and spoke to His creation.

Ok. If the Bible doesn't define Him completely, that means that
there are things not in the Bible that define Him. In fact, that
means that there are an infinite number of things in the
Bible that don't define Him.

Now, the Bible doesn't say whether or not Jesus walked with a
limp or who is uncle was. Let's say that I found a 2nd century
text that said that He had a limp and an uncle named 'Frank.'
Would you say that this is necessarily not part of revelation,
or are you opened to the possibility that this is in fact God's Word
(just not in the Bible)?

How so? No one is saying the Bible itself is God, or then it would be a contradiction. We're saying the Bible is absolutely correct about the aspects of God He presented to us in it.

The Bible makes no such claims about itself. The only thing that it
says is 'All Scripture is God-breathed (i.e., inspired).' It doesn't
define what Scripture is or if it is limited to 27 books or if it includes
a bizzilion other books.

Again, where are you getting complete revelation? Any Christian can tell you we do not claim to know everything about God. The Bible gives us enough so that we can reach the place where it's possible to learn more about Him.

So, you acknowledge, then, that a Moslem might know something about
God that you don't? Or a Mormon? Or a theistic Buddhist?

Nemesio

Ok. I was unclear. Let me rephrase:

The universe is infinite in dimension. Some scientists believe that
it is of infinite age; the big bang was one of a cycle of big bangs
that occur every xxx billions of years. For them, it is without
space or time. According to those scientists, it has always existed.

Why, then, does this entity which is without space and time need
a creator, but God -- an entity without space or time -- does not
need one.

Correction, some scientists believe that the singularity that gave birth to the universe is of infinite age. And since we cannot know the environment of that singularity into just after the Big Bang, that is pure conjecture. A matter of faith. No scientists claims to know what caused the Big Bang. So if you're asking me why those scientists are OK with having faith the universe always existed and not God (the most likely cause for the Big Bang), I couldn't tell you.

Ok. If the Bible doesn't define Him completely, that means that
there are things not in the Bible that define Him. In fact, that
means that there are an infinite number of things in the
Bible that don't define Him.

Now, the Bible doesn't say whether or not Jesus walked with a
limp or who is uncle was. Let's say that I found a 2nd century
text that said that He had a limp and an uncle named 'Frank.'
Would you say that this is necessarily not part of revelation,
or are you opened to the possibility that this is in fact God's Word
(just not in the Bible)?

The Bible isn't complete revelation, but we know it's correct revelation, so anything that contradicts it is false. If you found that book, I wouldn't necessarily say it wasn't revelation, but I would need proof it was.

The Bible makes no such claims about itself. The only thing that it
says is 'All Scripture is God-breathed (i.e., inspired).' It doesn't
define what Scripture is or if it is limited to 27 books or if it includes
a bizzilion other books.

The Bible makes no claim about itself, but God claims to be perfect, and He claims to have inspired the Bible, so it must be perfect.

So, you acknowledge, then, that a Moslem might know something about
God that you don't? Or a Mormon? Or a theistic Buddhist?

Yes, they might, until they say something that contradicts what we know to be the inspired Word of God. Then they are false prophets and false religions.

Originally posted by Darfius
Correction, some scientists believe that the singularity that gave birth to the universe is of infinite age. And since we cannot know the environment of that singularity into just after the Big Bang, that is pure conjecture. A matter of faith. No scientists claims to know what caused the Big Bang. So if you're asking me why those scientists are OK with having faith the universe always existed and not God (the most likely cause for the Big Bang), I couldn't tell you.

Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. Let's look at the parallels:

Universe: Infinite, eternal;
God: Infinite, eternal.

Big Bang Belief: Faith;
God belief: Faith.

God created: doesn't need one;
Universe created: needs one?

The Bible makes no claim about itself, but God claims to be perfect, and He claims to have inspired the Bible, so it must be perfect.

God does not claim to have inspired the Bible. The Bible claims that all
Scripture is 'God-breathed.' It fails, however, to define Scripture.
What was and was not Scripture was the product of a council meeting
hundreds of years later (that same council convened and ratified that
Baruch, 1/2 Maccabees and all the others were 'Scripture' as well).

Yes, they might, until they say something that contradicts what we know to be the inspired Word of God. Then they are false prophets and false religions.

But, if you recall that God found slavery permissible and then He
didn't, you cannot say with certainty that God wouldn't 'revise' or
'reinterpret' His relevalation with further Scripture.

I know what you are going to say: Revelation 22:18, but it is inapplicable.
It reads: 'I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:
if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described
in this book...'

As long as a person doesn't add to the Book of Revelation, they are not
violating the Word of God (assuming that they accept the Book of Revelation
as the Word of God, even though it was added decades after the council
which formed the canon). And, just so you know the Greek reads:
'bibliou toutou' meaning 'this small book,' which very clearly indicates the
Book of Revelation.

So, in fact, there is no provision against adding or revising. There is no
provision against the Koran or the Book of Mormon. If you are willing to
admit that God's revelation isn't complete (for, it is infinite and never
could be complete), then you are willing to admit that other books might
have revelation.

And if you are willing to admit that the NT 'revises' or 'fulfills' the OT, then
you must admit that there might be a 'new NT' which 'revises' or 'fulfills'
the 'old NT.' And so on.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Correction, some scientists believe that the singularity that gave birth to the universe is of infinite age. And since we cannot know the environment of that singularity into just after the Big Bang, ...[text shortened]... I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Why would God need a creator? If He created the universe, then clearly His powers and attributes are beyond our understanding.

Why does the earth need a creator? If a person can say God doesn't need
a creator, why can't another person say that earth doesn't need a creator?

And, if you claim that 'His powers and attributes are beyond our u ...[text shortened]... God is infinite, and the Bible is finite, how can this be the complete
reveleation?

Nemesio

and the bible has been discovered to be true...archeologists found the jericho...the fallen city...just wanted to say that if you didn't believe the bible already

Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Why does the earth need a creator?

Because we know it hasn't always existed. It isn't conjecture.

If a person can say God doesn't need
a creator, why can't another person say that earth doesn't need a creator?

Again, the earth is finite because it is. It doesn't really matter what a person says, it matters what the truth is. ...[text shortened]... gives us enough so that we can reach the place where it's possible to learn more about Him.

[/b]

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]But, if you recall that God found slavery permissible and then He
didn't, you cannot say with certainty that God wouldn't 'revise' or
'reinterpret' His relevalation with further Scripture.

[/b]I'm suprised you said this after the lenghty talk we had on this
subject. Where did God revise His stance on slavery? I'd like the
scripture ...[text shortened]... f you look at food you will see what was okay to eat, later changed
according to events.
Kelly[/b]

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Because we know it hasn't always existed. It isn't conjecture.

How do we know this?[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
Here we go again...

Back in the OT times, God had explicit rules which necessarily
allowed for slavery.

With the introduction of the NT, God introduced hitherto unknown
rules which, effectively makes it impossible to morally own a slave.

Back in OT times, God had explicit rules for what you could and
could not eat.

With the introduction of the ...[text shortened]... t be a 'new NT' which 'revises' or 'fulfills'
the 'old NT.' And so on. [/i]

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
Geology.

The statement that "the world stands above time" is false. The universe stands within time, having come into existence at time = 0. See Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

very true...when God said let there be light it started