A Look at God Only From What the Bible Teaches

[ToGodorNottoGod]

My new found friend Thomas t and I have been having delightful conversations on theodicy and it ended up getting more focused on Bible only type conceptualization. I am intrigued by his meaning of it and we discussed it a bit. He thinks the many churches are wrong about God and what the Bible says, which intrigues me, because I can't say I differ all that much form his idea on that.

Anyway, I am the one starting this thread so he can respond and we can begin a conversation (a very friendly one), concerning the Christian God as how the Bible depicts Him. Bible only, no other texts, ideas, or themes are allowed. And this intrigues me tremendously because I am not sure I have ever seen this done, meaning perhaps Thomas t might have a good point. So many have defined God through other disciplines than the Bible, and the Bible is the scripture, not philosophy, not science, not history, etc.

So... part of our problem I am thinking, is going to be which Bible we use since not all of them are the same canon, that never having been finalized as of yet, these few thousand years since the long drawn out bloody and messy process took place through the centuries.

The Protestant canon threw out the apocrypha, while the Catholic canon retains it. The Ethiopian canon included also the Book of Enoch, of which now several have been re-discovered and have been being studied now for several decades. The problem here appears to me to be which book of Enoch? We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Enoch, not all written at the same time nor in the same place, yet all contributing to dynamic and fascinating theological themes through history that have come out in our day and challenged our views of reality and spiritual and theological truth. The very serious influence of Enoch on the entire New Testament has been acknowledged and shown by all scholars of the books of Enoch, all of them biblical scholars. It would be rather odd to ignore it since its influence is embedded in the New Testament.

When I asked Thomas t he mentioned he only wants to go with the Hebrew and Greek as they are the original, though he is incorrect, at least historically, I understand what he means. So, I am assuming he will be using a Hebrew and Greek text. Mine will be the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensian Hebrew text, with NIV by John R. Kohlenberger III. And the Greek texts (once again, there are so many, which one is THE New Testament?!) is open to whatever he wants to use. There is enough online we can find common ground somewhere.

The one I am comfortable with is based on the United Bible Societies Fourth corrected edition - the same text as Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, translators being Robert K. Brown, Philip W. Comfort, and editor J. D. Douglas.

One issue that is going to simply have to come up is what critical lexicons and texts are we going to use since words have more than one meaning, and ancient words especially have different views and meanings than even what some translations have noted. Some groups of peoples anciently used a word to mean something which a different group rejected and gave their own meaning, and we may find both meanings in the Bible we are trying to use! Who is to say if either is the "original" (I mistrust that word, as I don't think we can logically use it in the Bible's case, the Greek itself is not the original language Jesus and his followers used, it itself is a remove from any so-called "original") So we are simply going to be virtually forced to look outside the Bible itself in order to understand it since we are dealing with ancient languages, hence the serious need for lexicons, dictionaries, and other helps in order to see if we can even learn the actual meaning, and actual context of what we are discussing. Not to mention actual Greek, Hebrew, Gnostic, Roman, and many other cultures which the Jews lived in and which did affect the language and their manner of lives, their manner of responding to political, historical, economic, and theological ideas and that is just for the New Testament! How many cultures directly are relevant to the Hebrew we have in the Old Testament?! Nothing in the Bible ever occurred in isolation. It is not a singular item from a vacuum. We cannot possibly make much sense if all we do is work within a vacuum. I'm not sure how we are going to iron this out, but we can give it a try.

With that said, I will give Thomas t the opening discussion of the Christian God using the Bible only. I am presuming both the Old and New Testaments are usable, along with the apocrypha since the world's largest Christian denomination contends it is scripture, so I go with that, so apocrypha is allowed to be utilized. The use of the Books of Enoch are also seriously possibly on the table. Just because we in the West are unfamiliar with the Ethiopian canon does not mean it is invalid, since it is the scripture of a large group of people. And this is just the tip of the iceberg I see, but I will defer to not worrying about ALL the ins and outs of this fascinating issue.

So Thomas t, I am looking forward to your first idea concerning God from the Bible.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

First of all, for you and Thomas t I find the 'apocryphal books' simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the harmonious '66' Bible books.
The added 'apocryphal books' do Not have the harmonious cross-reference verses or passages as the harmonious '66' Bible book have.
For one example: Scripture teaches sin entered into the world through Adam, whereas the apocryphal book of Sirach 25:23 places the blame on women.
It is the ancient manuscripts that support Bible canon, so the 'church' merely had to testify as to what was already established as the Word of God.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

First of all, for you and Thomas t I find the 'apocryphal books' simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the harmonious '66' Bible books.
The added 'apocryphal books' do Not have the harmonious cross-reference verses or passages as the harmonious '66' Bible book have.
For one example: Scripture teaches sin entered into the world through Adam, whereas the apocryphal book of Sirach 25:23 places the blame on women.
It is the ancient manuscripts that support Bible canon, so the 'church' merely had to testify as to what was already established as the Word of God.

Yes, that is one view, yet millions of others don't see it that way, so there is an issue, among many. The Bible has no overall harmony which all things said within its own pages agrees to, since it was composed over quite a long time and written by several different hands during different times by authors who had various political aspirations, understandings, and knowledges. So here we are already disagreeing with canons. It precisely makes my point, which Bible is to be used? There is no just "a Bible" or "the Bible" as a unit, there are various and diverse books gathered together into a single book, which is still not agreed upon in content after 2,000 years. It is one, among many, why I think the thinking of Bible only makes little sense with the historical reality we have before us. And after billions of man hours, and millions of minds, millions of pages of ink spilled and billions of trees lives turned into paper, is still not solved.

And all I have talked about is the Christian canon. The Jewish canon has literally no New Testament! So there is yet another angle to consider. In fact, the Christian canon does not end where the Jewish canon does and is in a different order which gives a different understanding of the religious history and its significance for the Jews. That makes a difference with meaning. So which canon is the real one? And what justifies the choice?

And the thought exists that the Bible is clear in its teachings.... that's almost laughable actually. When it comes to what the Bible supposedly teaches about God, I can already predict there will be no agreement or correct understanding and all that is going to get quoted is the Bible. It's weird, but that's what happens. Just watch. And I am not trying to make it a spitting contest either. An unspoken assumption is that the Bible is supposed to be totally coherent and non contradictory. I think that is merely a bias, it certainly has no substance in reality. No, this doesn't reflect on God if Thomas t thinks it does, it reflects on his own assumption concerning the Bible. It is a human production, which means, there is no reason to hold it down to unrealistic views and personal desires. It is what it is, and it is what we have to work with. We don't get to tell the Bible what we think it should mean, we have to let it, in all its situation tell us what it is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Protestant canon threw out the apocrypha, while the Catholic canon retains it.

Don't forget that the Jewish canon never added the New Testament in the first place.

 

[Heyo]

My new found friend Thomas t and I have been having delightful conversations on theodicy and it ended up getting more focused on Bible only type conceptualization. I am intrigued by his meaning of it and we discussed it a bit. He thinks the many churches are wrong about God and what the Bible says, which intrigues me, because I can't say I differ all that much form his idea on that.

Anyway, I am the one starting this thread so he can respond and we can begin a conversation (a very friendly one), concerning the Christian God as how the Bible depicts Him. Bible only, no other texts, ideas, or themes are allowed. And this intrigues me tremendously because I am not sure I have ever seen this done, meaning perhaps Thomas t might have a good point. So many have defined God through other disciplines than the Bible, and the Bible is the scripture, not philosophy, not science, not history, etc.

So... part of our problem I am thinking, is going to be which Bible we use since not all of them are the same canon, that never having been finalized as of yet, these few thousand years since the long drawn out bloody and messy process took place through the centuries.

The Protestant canon threw out the apocrypha, while the Catholic canon retains it. The Ethiopian canon included also the Book of Enoch, of which now several have been re-discovered and have been being studied now for several decades. The problem here appears to me to be which book of Enoch? We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Enoch, not all written at the same time nor in the same place, yet all contributing to dynamic and fascinating theological themes through history that have come out in our day and challenged our views of reality and spiritual and theological truth. The very serious influence of Enoch on the entire New Testament has been acknowledged and shown by all scholars of the books of Enoch, all of them biblical scholars. It would be rather odd to ignore it since its influence is embedded in the New Testament.

When I asked Thomas t he mentioned he only wants to go with the Hebrew and Greek as they are the original, though he is incorrect, at least historically, I understand what he means. So, I am assuming he will be using a Hebrew and Greek text. Mine will be the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensian Hebrew text, with NIV by John R. Kohlenberger III. And the Greek texts (once again, there are so many, which one is THE New Testament?!) is open to whatever he wants to use. There is enough online we can find common ground somewhere.

The one I am comfortable with is based on the United Bible Societies Fourth corrected edition - the same text as Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, translators being Robert K. Brown, Philip W. Comfort, and editor J. D. Douglas.

One issue that is going to simply have to come up is what critical lexicons and texts are we going to use since words have more than one meaning, and ancient words especially have different views and meanings than even what some translations have noted. Some groups of peoples anciently used a word to mean something which a different group rejected and gave their own meaning, and we may find both meanings in the Bible we are trying to use! Who is to say if either is the "original" (I mistrust that word, as I don't think we can logically use it in the Bible's case, the Greek itself is not the original language Jesus and his followers used, it itself is a remove from any so-called "original") So we are simply going to be virtually forced to look outside the Bible itself in order to understand it since we are dealing with ancient languages, hence the serious need for lexicons, dictionaries, and other helps in order to see if we can even learn the actual meaning, and actual context of what we are discussing. Not to mention actual Greek, Hebrew, Gnostic, Roman, and many other cultures which the Jews lived in and which did affect the language and their manner of lives, their manner of responding to political, historical, economic, and theological ideas and that is just for the New Testament! How many cultures directly are relevant to the Hebrew we have in the Old Testament?! Nothing in the Bible ever occurred in isolation. It is not a singular item from a vacuum. We cannot possibly make much sense if all we do is work within a vacuum. I'm not sure how we are going to iron this out, but we can give it a try.

With that said, I will give Thomas t the opening discussion of the Christian God using the Bible only. I am presuming both the Old and New Testaments are usable, along with the apocrypha since the world's largest Christian denomination contends it is scripture, so I go with that, so apocrypha is allowed to be utilized. The use of the Books of Enoch are also seriously possibly on the table. Just because we in the West are unfamiliar with the Ethiopian canon does not mean it is invalid, since it is the scripture of a large group of people. And this is just the tip of the iceberg I see, but I will defer to not worrying about ALL the ins and outs of this fascinating issue.

So Thomas t, I am looking forward to your first idea concerning God from the Bible.

A bold move that I can only recommend. You guys are really doing work where we others only comment. And I excuse myself from this effort also as I see it as an obligation of the believers to define god and non believers would only undermine the process.
But I am very interested in the result as I predict that your inevitable failure will once again strengthen my Agnostic position.

 

[rational experiences]

Men scientists human think.

A concept owning a man human agreed thinking condition.

That says as that man thinker I will.

His man him he will. His own.

I will know. His claim.

So a non scientist owning no human want can look at this human condition and think contrary to the will of the want.

To know.

A fact. You are looking for what you personally claim is a self human identified highest self appraised conscious or spiritual ideal.

Yet your science claim is a power of all powers. Which is not a conscious status.

That virtual comment places the idea as not conscious at all.

With no self human recognition as you already know you are not the power of all power.

The G O. D argument about maths in science O claiming consciously as I live in heavens the awareness of light movement in a water gas state in space as a vacuum is a O rotating spiral G and O splitting due to human science causes as science DD.

Science is thought by a human in concepts human only.

Science invented by a human was not conceptualized on creation it was for inventive design originally.

You overlook what science was first thought for. A design was a human built machine reasoning. As you never owned the natural reason why mass as natural bodies owned form.

As they do own form and science said O mass was a God by a planet body.

A God for design was earth.

God was a concept for machine design then machine reaction.

 

[thomas t]

My new found friend Thomas t and I have been having delightful conversations on theodicy and it ended up getting more focused on Bible only type conceptualization. I am intrigued by his meaning of it and we discussed it a bit. He thinks the many churches are wrong about God and what the Bible says, which intrigues me, because I can't say I differ all that much form his idea on that.

Anyway, I am the one starting this thread so he can respond and we can begin a conversation (a very friendly one), concerning the Christian God as how the Bible depicts Him. Bible only, no other texts, ideas, or themes are allowed. And this intrigues me tremendously because I am not sure I have ever seen this done, meaning perhaps Thomas t might have a good point. So many have defined God through other disciplines than the Bible, and the Bible is the scripture, not philosophy, not science, not history, etc.

So... part of our problem I am thinking, is going to be which Bible we use since not all of them are the same canon, that never having been finalized as of yet, these few thousand years since the long drawn out bloody and messy process took place through the centuries.

The Protestant canon threw out the apocrypha, while the Catholic canon retains it. The Ethiopian canon included also the Book of Enoch, of which now several have been re-discovered and have been being studied now for several decades. The problem here appears to me to be which book of Enoch? We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Enoch, not all written at the same time nor in the same place, yet all contributing to dynamic and fascinating theological themes through history that have come out in our day and challenged our views of reality and spiritual and theological truth. The very serious influence of Enoch on the entire New Testament has been acknowledged and shown by all scholars of the books of Enoch, all of them biblical scholars. It would be rather odd to ignore it since its influence is embedded in the New Testament.

When I asked Thomas t he mentioned he only wants to go with the Hebrew and Greek as they are the original, though he is incorrect, at least historically, I understand what he means. So, I am assuming he will be using a Hebrew and Greek text. Mine will be the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensian Hebrew text, with NIV by John R. Kohlenberger III. And the Greek texts (once again, there are so many, which one is THE New Testament?!) is open to whatever he wants to use. There is enough online we can find common ground somewhere.

The one I am comfortable with is based on the United Bible Societies Fourth corrected edition - the same text as Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, translators being Robert K. Brown, Philip W. Comfort, and editor J. D. Douglas.

One issue that is going to simply have to come up is what critical lexicons and texts are we going to use since words have more than one meaning, and ancient words especially have different views and meanings than even what some translations have noted. Some groups of peoples anciently used a word to mean something which a different group rejected and gave their own meaning, and we may find both meanings in the Bible we are trying to use! Who is to say if either is the "original" (I mistrust that word, as I don't think we can logically use it in the Bible's case, the Greek itself is not the original language Jesus and his followers used, it itself is a remove from any so-called "original") So we are simply going to be virtually forced to look outside the Bible itself in order to understand it since we are dealing with ancient languages, hence the serious need for lexicons, dictionaries, and other helps in order to see if we can even learn the actual meaning, and actual context of what we are discussing. Not to mention actual Greek, Hebrew, Gnostic, Roman, and many other cultures which the Jews lived in and which did affect the language and their manner of lives, their manner of responding to political, historical, economic, and theological ideas and that is just for the New Testament! How many cultures directly are relevant to the Hebrew we have in the Old Testament?! Nothing in the Bible ever occurred in isolation. It is not a singular item from a vacuum. We cannot possibly make much sense if all we do is work within a vacuum. I'm not sure how we are going to iron this out, but we can give it a try.

With that said, I will give Thomas t the opening discussion of the Christian God using the Bible only. I am presuming both the Old and New Testaments are usable, along with the apocrypha since the world's largest Christian denomination contends it is scripture, so I go with that, so apocrypha is allowed to be utilized. The use of the Books of Enoch are also seriously possibly on the table. Just because we in the West are unfamiliar with the Ethiopian canon does not mean it is invalid, since it is the scripture of a large group of people. And this is just the tip of the iceberg I see, but I will defer to not worrying about ALL the ins and outs of this fascinating issue.

So Thomas t, I am looking forward to your first idea concerning God from the Bible.

Hi ToGod,
nice to see you opening this very friendly thread.
Bible only, as I see it, is a concept directed against all attempts to broaden theology beyond what is biblical adding certain features that cannot be found therein.
Best example: the ascension of Mary. It's pure speculation. Nothing in the text indicates it. The whole concept of Mary being "immaculate" is speculation at best.

Other aspects are simply conjecture in a way that they are never found in the scriptures such as "inherited sin". Bible simply does not say this.

These are prominent features Bible only proponents are against.

I personally highly favor this concept and go one step further questioning even established mainstream theological features such as omniscience.
I would even go one step further saying there is no (not one) Bible verse saying that Mary had a virgin birth. There are many verses indicating that Jesus had a divine father. But there is none about Mary being a virgin as late as the day of giving birth to Jesus. It's just not there in the text. It cannot be found.
Many Christians say it's logical that she was.
But Bible only means what it means Bible only. Even if for many it seems evident, you cannot show it using the sciptures.
(here, it's important to use the original version, since KJV has virgin birth if I remember well).

This is meant when I say Bible only.

But I do hold that the Bible does quote non-Canonical books such as 1 Enoch. This one gets quoted in Jude 1:4, 1:6, 1:13, 1:14–15,[22] 2 Peter 2:4; 3:13,[23][24] and John 7:38 [25]

So, to me "Bible only" is a great concept when it comes to people pointing to their own "holy books".
But I must admit that it is not 100% like this, since Bible itself mentions extra-biblical sources.

I am focussed on debates with atheists. It never happened to me that one of the non-canonical books cited in the Bible became a topic.

It's usually God's purported omniscience and the Catholic extra-biblical opinions. This is what I would call inventions.



Thank you for mentioning me in this thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

Only from what the Bible teaches? You get a mix and an anthropomorphic ancient cultural tribal messages. This is not the reality of a universal 'Source' of some called God(s).

 

[Colt]

The concept of God in the Bible is largely one created in the image of those who wrote it. Jesus would be the closest portrayal of God the Father that we have.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, that is one view, yet millions of others don't see it that way, so there is an issue, among many. The Bible has no overall harmony which all things said within its own pages agrees to, since it was composed over quite a long time and written by several different hands during different times by authors who had various political aspirations, understandings, and knowledges. So here we are already disagreeing with canons. It precisely makes my point, which Bible is to be used? There is no just "a Bible" or "the Bible" as a unit, there are various and diverse books gathered together into a single book, which is still not agreed upon in content after 2,000 years. It is one, among many, why I think the thinking of Bible only makes little sense with the historical reality we have before us. And after billions of man hours, and millions of minds, millions of pages of ink spilled and billions of trees lives turned into paper, is still not solved.
And all I have talked about is the Christian canon. The Jewish canon has literally no New Testament! So there is yet another angle to consider. In fact, the Christian canon does not end where the Jewish canon does and is in a different order which gives a different understanding of the religious history and its significance for the Jews. That makes a difference with meaning. So which canon is the real one? And what justifies the choice?
And the thought exists that the Bible is clear in its teachings.... that's almost laughable actually. When it comes to what the Bible supposedly teaches about God, I can already predict there will be no agreement or correct understanding and all that is going to get quoted is the Bible. It's weird, but that's what happens. Just watch. And I am not trying to make it a spitting contest either. An unspoken assumption is that the Bible is supposed to be totally coherent and non contradictory. I think that is merely a bias, it certainly has no substance in reality. No, this doesn't reflect on God if Thomas t thinks it does, it reflects on his own assumption concerning the Bible. It is a human production, which means, there is no reason to hold it down to unrealistic views and personal desires. It is what it is, and it is what we have to work with. We don't get to tell the Bible what we think it should mean, we have to let it, in all its situation tell us what it is.

My reply is: Translations
When I met a man that read to me Ecclesiastes 1:4 B that Earth abides forever I wondered if my Bible said that.
My best friend's mother was a Sunday School teacher and she had lots of Bibles.
So, I went over to her house and opened up every Bible to Ecclesiastes 1:4.
I read out LOUD from each Bible and I said to her Look each Bible is saying the same thing.
One said 'stays' forever, another ' remains ' forever, KJV ' abides ' forever, etc.
She acknowledged that each Bible was saying the same thing even if different synonyms were used.

At home I sat down with a KJV, Douay, Good News Bible and my college dictionary.
So, No matter what subject I researched I found ALL the Bible writers to be in harmony with one another.
I found there are some paraphrased Bibles out there but they are Not translations.
What I am getting at is Translations generally follow the ancient manuscripts.
If something is out of the ordinary is can be checked.
Such as added on verses, such as after Mark 16:8. Mark chapter 16 ends at verse 8.
So, spurious verses can be uncovered, and spiritual light grows brighter each day - Proverbs 4:18.

 

[Yahcubs777]

My new found friend Thomas t and I have been having delightful conversations on theodicy and it ended up getting more focused on Bible only type conceptualization. I am intrigued by his meaning of it and we discussed it a bit. He thinks the many churches are wrong about God and what the Bible says, which intrigues me, because I can't say I differ all that much form his idea on that.

Anyway, I am the one starting this thread so he can respond and we can begin a conversation (a very friendly one), concerning the Christian God as how the Bible depicts Him. Bible only, no other texts, ideas, or themes are allowed. And this intrigues me tremendously because I am not sure I have ever seen this done, meaning perhaps Thomas t might have a good point. So many have defined God through other disciplines than the Bible, and the Bible is the scripture, not philosophy, not science, not history, etc.

So... part of our problem I am thinking, is going to be which Bible we use since not all of them are the same canon, that never having been finalized as of yet, these few thousand years since the long drawn out bloody and messy process took place through the centuries.

The Protestant canon threw out the apocrypha, while the Catholic canon retains it. The Ethiopian canon included also the Book of Enoch, of which now several have been re-discovered and have been being studied now for several decades. The problem here appears to me to be which book of Enoch? We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Enoch, not all written at the same time nor in the same place, yet all contributing to dynamic and fascinating theological themes through history that have come out in our day and challenged our views of reality and spiritual and theological truth. The very serious influence of Enoch on the entire New Testament has been acknowledged and shown by all scholars of the books of Enoch, all of them biblical scholars. It would be rather odd to ignore it since its influence is embedded in the New Testament.

When I asked Thomas t he mentioned he only wants to go with the Hebrew and Greek as they are the original, though he is incorrect, at least historically, I understand what he means. So, I am assuming he will be using a Hebrew and Greek text. Mine will be the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensian Hebrew text, with NIV by John R. Kohlenberger III. And the Greek texts (once again, there are so many, which one is THE New Testament?!) is open to whatever he wants to use. There is enough online we can find common ground somewhere.

The one I am comfortable with is based on the United Bible Societies Fourth corrected edition - the same text as Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, translators being Robert K. Brown, Philip W. Comfort, and editor J. D. Douglas.

One issue that is going to simply have to come up is what critical lexicons and texts are we going to use since words have more than one meaning, and ancient words especially have different views and meanings than even what some translations have noted. Some groups of peoples anciently used a word to mean something which a different group rejected and gave their own meaning, and we may find both meanings in the Bible we are trying to use! Who is to say if either is the "original" (I mistrust that word, as I don't think we can logically use it in the Bible's case, the Greek itself is not the original language Jesus and his followers used, it itself is a remove from any so-called "original") So we are simply going to be virtually forced to look outside the Bible itself in order to understand it since we are dealing with ancient languages, hence the serious need for lexicons, dictionaries, and other helps in order to see if we can even learn the actual meaning, and actual context of what we are discussing. Not to mention actual Greek, Hebrew, Gnostic, Roman, and many other cultures which the Jews lived in and which did affect the language and their manner of lives, their manner of responding to political, historical, economic, and theological ideas and that is just for the New Testament! How many cultures directly are relevant to the Hebrew we have in the Old Testament?! Nothing in the Bible ever occurred in isolation. It is not a singular item from a vacuum. We cannot possibly make much sense if all we do is work within a vacuum. I'm not sure how we are going to iron this out, but we can give it a try.

With that said, I will give Thomas t the opening discussion of the Christian God using the Bible only. I am presuming both the Old and New Testaments are usable, along with the apocrypha since the world's largest Christian denomination contends it is scripture, so I go with that, so apocrypha is allowed to be utilized. The use of the Books of Enoch are also seriously possibly on the table. Just because we in the West are unfamiliar with the Ethiopian canon does not mean it is invalid, since it is the scripture of a large group of people. And this is just the tip of the iceberg I see, but I will defer to not worrying about ALL the ins and outs of this fascinating issue.

So Thomas t, I am looking forward to your first idea concerning God from the Bible.

I am also interested to hear this friend of yours view, as it is true that none of the churches out there, from any and every denomination, are teaching the true message of the GOD.
And this was revealed in the bible that it would happen, and has been happening from even cain, to nimrod, to Aaron, to saul, to solomon, to saul, and to the millions of false preachers that have stepped into ministry for the last 2000+ years including the very preacher whose messages they preach predominately.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

I will start my analysis of God in the Bible with the first chapter of Genesis. Here we know God created everything. After creating the heavens and the earth, God created the light, and we read in verse 4 וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָא֖וֹר כִּי־ט֑וֹב - God saw the light that it was good.

Then he separates the light from the darkness, the upper firmament of waters from the lower, called the upper ky, and was done the 2nd day. So, the waters are gathered into a place, and the dry land appears, hence he called them earth and seas, and we read again, וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב - way-yar Elohim, ki tov - God saw that it was good.

After the vegetation, the seeds of the fruit trees, and other plants on the earth we again are told in vs. 12 - וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב God saw that it was good. After the luminaries in the heavens are created, the lights for earth, etc. at verse 18 we again read וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב God saw that it was good.

Then the heavens are given to the flying creatures, the sea was filled with creatures, and the land, and then on verse 21 we get again, וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב God saw that it was good.

Then man and woman are created, and God blessed them to multiply, as well as all the flying birds, land animals, and great fish in the sea, all the herbs, fruits of trees, and vegetation, and all are given to mankind for food, God reviews all this and we now finally read וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד - and God saw all that he had made and behold, it was very good. The Hebrew really emphasizes this in verse 31, meod being vehemently or wholly with intensive superlatives when in use. It means mightily, powerfully, and wonderfully!

So here we have God creating all things in the sky, the light, the lights greater for the day, lesser for the night, all the herbs, bushes, plants, vegetation, and trees with their fruits, all the various birds in the sky, animals on the earth, and fish in the sea, all for food for us! And this the Bible declares as being very, awesomely, spectacularly good. I would propose, at least in intent, and action, God appears to be a rather good and interested party in making sure life for us is supposed to be like winning the sweepstakes all at once. We have been given everything of value, beauty, food, a place to live, air to breathe, water to swim in and enjoy, and land to live on.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I find that people seem to Not notice there is a difference between the word ' create ' and the word ' made ' found at
Genesis 1 God created.....
Because of the word ' made ' at Genesis 1:16-19 some people think: create is the same meaning as made.
They are two (2) different words.
At verse one God ' created ' and at verses 16 -19 God 'made' the already 'created ' light do something.
Kind of like a parent pro-creates a child, and the created child is ' made ' to do something.
For example: the existing child is ' made ' to go to school, etc.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

I find that people seem to Not notice there is a difference between the word ' create ' and the word ' made ' found at
Genesis 1 God created.....
Because of the word ' made ' at Genesis 1:16-19 some people think: create is the same meaning as made.
They are two (2) different words.
At verse one God ' created ' and at verses 16 -19 God 'made' the already 'created ' light do something.
Kind of like a parent pro-creates a child, and the created child is ' made ' to do something.
For example: the existing child is ' made ' to go to school, etc.

Yes, very good point amigo! Thanks for pointing that out for us all.

 

[Deeje]

God reviews all this and we now finally read וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד - and God saw all that he had made and behold, it was very good. The Hebrew really emphasizes this in verse 31, meod being vehemently or wholly with intensive superlatives when in use. It means mightily, powerfully, and wonderfully!

It is so easy, as @URAVIP2ME has mentioned, to read over words without consciously acknowledging what they say.

In creating the heavens and the Earth, God created everything in one almighty act of power......but we Earthlings have no way to know how it took place, or how long that creative act took in our counting of time. To an infinite God, time is not relevant.

Seeing as how other verses in the Bible complete the picture, it is apparent that the earth was at first an empty world completely covered by water and in total darkness. If God had already created all our sources of light, what was preventing the light from reaching the surface of the earth's surface? The answer is in Job, I believe...

Job 38:4-10....God asked Job....
"Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb,
9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,
10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place."

Can we see why the light didn't penetrate the darkness until God somehow removed "the clouds and thick gloom" that prevented the light from striking the earth? Now that light was visible, it made night and day distinguishable through the rotation of the planet. But there was apparently still some impediment to land dwellers being able to see the stars and the sun and moon clearly. There was enough light for photosynthesis but more was to be revealed in its due time....not until day 4. So when God created the flying creatures of the heavens and the marine creatures that swarmed in the oceans, cycles that govern life on earth would have been well established.

God created Earth's atmosphere which would contain both oxygen and water so that it never escaped...and he provided the means to permanently recycle both......precipitation by evaporation of water into the clouds from the oceans, and dropping it as fresh water onto the dry land......and oxygen renewal by the trees taking in carbon dioxide and giving out oxygen....brilliant! No life can survive without either.

On the Earth God brought land masses together so that dry land came up out of the water. This in turn formed seas and oceans. Once the dry land was established, it was time to provide the means to feed a vast variety of creatures who would enjoy life here on this earth with humankind to follow.

So here was have God creating all things in the sky, the light, the lights greater for the day, lesser for the night, all the herbs, bushes, plants, vegetation, and trees with their fruits, all the various birds in the sky, animals on the earth, and fish in the sea, all for food for us! And this the Bible declares as being very, awesomely, spectacularly good. I would propose, at least in intent, and action, God appears to be a rather good and interested party in making sure life for us is supposed to be like winning the sweepstakes all at once. We have been given everything of value, beauty, food, a place to live, air to breathe, water to swim in and enjoy, and land to live on.

How incredible is it? Everything that was needed to sustain life was in evidence before sentient life was created. Bacteria and vegetation were early forms of life, but not as the first humans were aware....we would learn about those things as we continued our journey of discovery on this unique planet. We are naturally curious about these things.....but look how long it took us to find out!

The whole of creation was here a "day" before humans arrived on the scene.....but the creative "days" could not have been 24 hour periods..... both science and the Bible make allowance for this. Science can prove that the earth is ancient, and that its creatures are not recent arrivals. And the Bible uses the word "day" (yôm) in Genesis as meaning not only a period of 24 hours, but also as a word for a period of undetermined length.
Those creative periods could well have been millions of years long....long enough for dinosaurs to have lived and died to fulfill the purpose for which they were created.

Who could imagine this was all just the product of blind chance?

Just the earth itself.....its size, its shape, the speed of its rotation, and its distance from the sun....the mixture of gases that form our atmosphere.....all of these are very necessary things in their own right but they all come together with the placement of this planet in one particular galaxy, in one particular solar system, and on one particular planet among billions.

What a fascinating journey we have been granted. Life was not meant to be boring, but full of amazing things to explore and to to be thankful for....how sad for those who walk around with their eyes closed....

 

[rational experiences]

As a human is writing all themes thinking bible statement I get told that I must comply to a human teaching. Why?

The challenge you don't actually attempt to reply to.

As a healer spiritual lived experience human I attempted to understand the written theology God and did not find it good.

Reasoning information by seeing.

Scientific thesis stories first see also in life concepts but owned a human pre formed concept. I want to try to match in comparison God to my motivated pre owned thoughts God by a human motivation. Science not natural.

What I have seen.

Destruction to change by an outcome presence in cooling I don't imply is good. As a human I would feel sorry for the history God body.

To claim why destruction existed first. Not good.

Yet the theist concept human about God as you are theorising looking back is for single minded I. Human want of concepts as we live naturally owns the reason to argue.

Human theosophy.

Jesus theme. Invention science human choice from looking back. God is good owns life support which is not science.

Jesus statement god says light in heavens got removed. Light existing in heavens is human seen life continuance but not life itself. Thinker owns life that said Jesus event not good either.

Where is God is good in science?

Not real.

When we say the highest life support was the sacrificed spirit. Reasoning as it was alight burning. When it was removed by inventive science to become a higher colder spirit not burning not sacrificed. Wrong.

Dark cold God heavens would be in science God is good for science statement. For human motivation.

Why light spirit sacrificed was gods holy spirit but not God. God is good earth cold non burning body first. Earth form of a humans claim God is good.

Remembering a human seeing by visionary concepts says why God is good.

God is good mass is cold sealed present supporting all living life forms already present by statement.

 

[rational experiences]

The next motivated man human story teller theist quotes. God owned change for seven days. The seventh it stopped.

Consciousness life lives in a supported heavens gas void vacuum light sacrifice. Light constant that never stopped. Wait a minute it did the Jesus event.

In the past it was counted. As origin science cause eviction. You cannot determine a pre reference in science a count on light not being constant.

So a human who infers counting knew.

Science today argues gods seventh day rest as light is a constant. Science statement as science.

The very reason.

When life lived with nature garden support and you get God evicted. Then life changed on earth by human science cause. The reason for an experience to document human choice. Science invention used against God existing.

God existing spirit is a cold gas is not a resource.

Cold gas burning is inventive science resource.

The status to argue about God spirit.

We are not wood. The garden bio life origin form the teaching.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Where is God is good in science?

Not real.

I don't see science as the arbiter, so this is irrelevant to a person's spirituality. Science is powerful, but it's not all powerful. The Bible, and other scriptures are not meant as scientific texts, so to judge them by that is futile. Of course they will be found lacking, it isn't their base or basis.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

God existing spirit is a cold gas is not a resource.

Cold gas burning is inventive science resource.

Since the Bible never calls God a cold gas, it is moot. One cannot argue against a text and what it says by arguing what it ought to have said and didn't. Well, I mean one can argue that way, but it's moot and means precious little to the text in question.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't see science as the arbiter, so this is irrelevant to a person's spirituality. Science is powerful, but it's not all powerful. The Bible, and other scriptures are not meant as scientific texts, so to judge them by that is futile................

..... I would like to take the liberty and add the adjective ' known ' to the ^ above ^. Known science.....
As time advances so does scientific knowledge, so we still deal with ' known science ' as it seems today.
Just a thought....