Where did God come from?

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
From what I read on the net the Greek & Hebrew texts only agree with each other 95% of the time.

The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. What are you talking about?

Obviously I can't confirm this from personel experience, as I can't read greek or herbrew. But certainly it seems feasible.

It isn't. Or possible.

Also there are other regilious text that never made the NT, The gospel of St thomas etc...

The Gospel of Thomas was clearly the result of Gnostic thinking. The Gnostics were heretics that formed soon after the true church of Christ (not the Catholics, but the body of believers).

The fact that there are such things indicates some selective editing.

Yes, the Holy Spirit selectively edited, using Palestinian Jews and the council of Catholics.

Plus even you can't deny that the gospels were written by man.

I don't deny that men put the ink to the surface.

Then consider mans propensity for getting facts wrongs, for embellishment, for misinteruptation, for fabrication.

But the Holy Spirit directly inspired every word they wrote. And what would they have to gain through lying? Aside from death of course.

I doubt very much that Jesus did things exactly the same as is stated in the bible.

Why? Have you read the Gospels? What man or group of men could have His insight? His genius?

Actually a small portion of the OT was written in Aramaic. So did you get your Aramaic-English translator to translate those books for you as well?

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Actually a small portion of the OT was written in Aramaic. So did you get your Aramaic-English translator to translate those books for you as well?

Do you mean the NT? And no, because the Greek copies were made around the same time as the Aramaic.

The point is to get as close to the source as possible. KJV is nowhere near the source.

Huge meaningless posts only cause brain sleep.

The answer to the question isn't answered there so I will answer it here:
The OT god is a construct , a merging of polytheistic gods ! Part Sumerian , part Canaanite and all Bull.

As for the first cause argument the only thing that doesn't need a begining isn NOthing:. which is as good a description of the space that holds the universe as any, but a very bad one for a creator of all things.

BTW calling that OT god a Super-Intelligence makes mockery out of the words.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Huge meaningless posts only cause brain sleep.

The answer to the question isn't answered there so I will answer it here:
The OT god is a construct , a merging of polytheistic gods ! Part Sumerian , part Canaanite and all Bull.

As for the first cause argument the only thing that doesn't need a begining isn NOthing:. whi ...[text shortened]... l things.

BTW calling that OT god a Super-Intelligence makes mockery out of the words.

You love spouting this, but you have no proof. Make another thread, don't hijack this one.

Originally posted by Darfius
Do you mean the NT? And no, because the Greek copies were made around the same time as the Aramaic.

The point is to get as close to the source as possible. KJV is nowhere near the source.

No, actually I mean the Old Testament.

Edit: Source: http://www.preceptsagemont.org/OldTestamentPrimer.htm

Originally posted by Darfius
What exactly is wrong with the Bible? Remember, only the original Hebrew and Greek texts were 100% free of error. Modern day translations have errors due to copyists, but everything is still inspired.

Well, even if this IS true, we don't have anything resembling original
copies. The oldest copies of Hebrew stuff we have is the passages from
the Dead Sea Scrolls (which concord rather well with the 11th century
Bible which is the oldest complete Hebrew text).

(Here is a link for that OT)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/biblical_manuscripts/LeningradCodex.shtml

So, we have nothing even remotely chronologically close to the 'original Genesis.'

Furthermore, the transmission of NT texts underwent extraordinary revision, with
added verses and chapters. How do we know this? Because we have a plethora
of non-concordant 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-century sources with all manner of
variations, omissions and additions from what we might call the 'Master Copy.'

Any Bible worth its salt will indicate where this variation occurs, though many do
not (most notably the KJV).

So, we are, necessarily, dealing with flawed copies because no 'originals'
are extant.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
You love spouting this, but you have no proof. Make another thread, don't hijack this one.

This is on point ,,silly man.
I dont care if you dont like to hear it,,, too bad...
Thruth is the evidence is written in stone ,,or rather clay, tablets written long before the Isrealites priestsdecided to steal Sargon's childhood to attach to their construct Moses.

Originally posted by frogstomp
This is on point ,,silly man.
I dont care if you dont like to hear it,,, too bad...
Thruth is the evidence is written in stone ,,or rather clay, tablets written long before the Isrealites priestsdecided to steal Sargon's childhood to attach to their construct Moses.

Could they have worshipped the same God with different names at one point, frog? In other words, did the Hebrew pull God out of thin air or did He directly reveal Himself to them after eveyrone had fudged up His image too much?

Originally posted by Darfius
How can men of 'reason' attempt to dismiss God by applying our laws of physics to Him? This does would be akin to 2D cartoons who--for the purposes of this example--were given sentience and dismissed that they were created because they could not imagine a 3rd dimension. They would be projecting their finite knowledge and abilities onto a theoretically infinitely wise and powerful being. Does this make sense?

If I may continue this analogy, imagine that the 2D cartoon characters claim that they were created by 'the God'. They find a book that makes a lot of claims about the God. It claims that the God was sitting there one day bored to tears, so he decided to draw a comic strip. He created their little world. They decide it is likely enough to be true, and so choose to believe it.

The characters start to feel special, and their reasoning skews to support the feeling. They imagine that there are no other comic strips out there with the conditions necessary to support living characters. They come up with 'fatal' objections. The paper has to be a certain thickness, they argued, or the ink would soak through the page. Without proper ink, the colors would smear. Surely it was true that they were the only comic strip created by the God.

So they live out their lives, completely oblivious to all the other comic strips around them, all the other comic strips created by their 'god', all the other 'gods' who create comic strips, and all the different types of paper and ink used in the printing, and all the other publications with comic strips in them.

THE END

Originally posted by Darfius
Could they have worshipped the same God with different names at one point, frog? In other words, did the Hebrew pull God out of thin air or did He directly reveal Himself to them after eveyrone had fudged up His image too much?

you can't seem to grasp the idea that they were in the process of consolidating the attributes of the many gods they had into the one, it had nothing at all to do with devine revelation. For that you need to wait for the Sequel entitled Son of......

Originally posted by frogstomp
you can't seem to grasp the idea that they were in the process of consolidating the attributes of the many gods they had into the one, it had nothing at all to do with devine revelation. For that you need to wait for the Sequel entitled Son of......

Dude, you make no sense. Either provide evidence, present a believable conspiracy theory or resign yourself to parroting the ideas of the more prepared atheists.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, even if this IS true, we don't have anything resembling original
copies. The oldest copies of Hebrew stuff we have is the passages from
the Dead Sea Scrolls (which concord rather well with the 11th century
Bible which is the oldest [b]complete Hebrew text).

(Here is a link for that OT)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/bib ...[text shortened]... essarily[/b], dealing with flawed copies because no 'originals'
are extant.

Nemesio[/b]

Darfius, why don't you make some comment about Nemesio's post above?

Or do you fail to answer any issue that seems a bit to rigorous for you?

Henry

Originally posted by Darfius
Dude, you make no sense. Either provide evidence, present a believable conspiracy theory or resign yourself to parroting the ideas of the more prepared atheists.

None of your inane banter matters , silly man. the evidence is there if you look for it, Your asinine assertion that anybody that has seen the evidence is claiming a conspiracy is becoming more absurd as i see more and more evidence from the distance past.
Since I am not an atheist the rest of your attempt to trash me is just that trash.
Talking about parroting you have been parroting the party line right along.
but for the sake of others i will tell you where to look
read the Enuma Elish, the Sumerian Kings list,, Xiusudra Flood for starters do your own research.

Originally posted by Maustrauser
Darfius, why don't you make some comment about Nemesio's post above?

Or do you fail to answer any issue that seems a bit to rigorous for you?

Henry

Because I agreed with his assessment...

He didn't contradict my point in any way. Should I address every lengthy post now?