This is an extension of another thread that I started. I've fully fleshed out the idea and came to a definite conclusion using God himself.

Let's assume the Judeo-Christian god is real. This would imply that he created the universe and the Bible is his inspired word. Therefore, from these two facts, it follows that he cannot exist, as I will show.

The Two Realms

The universe is his creation. Because he willed it into being, it must be a reflection of how he wanted a universe to be like. Therefore, all observations through science (which is merely using nature "against" itself to derive observations and conclusions) must be reflecting the inner-workings of what he set forth in motion.

The Bible is his word. Part of his will was to create beings that he could love. Because of the intricate complexity of love, these beings were given free will, which inevitably meant God would have to reach down and provide a way out of what we caused. Therefore, the Bible was intended to spread the Good News of who we are, what our purpose is and ultimately how much we are loved by the one that created us.

The Conclusions

These are the two realms that God willed. One is the physical world and the other is his word that we can read to make sense of this physical experience. Because God willed the physical world into being, it implies that what we observe must be what he intended the universe to be like. If God also willed the Bible into eventual existence, then again, it implies that he must love us and have that plan of salvation for us. If the second assumption is 100% true, then it means he cannot possibly deceive in any way, as that would ultimately reveal that he is mischievous and this love that he has for us could be a mere illusion. Therefore, he cannot be a deceiver which ultimately means no part of his will can be in apparent conflict.

The Problem

This leads us to the first couple of chapters of his word. It seems like there is an apparent contradiction between the universe he willed and the words he willed into the Bible. Given that when we take the universe he created and we yield results with it that are a cause of the laws of his universe, we can rest assured that the interpretation of the universe is exactly what he willed. This means that the universe really is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. What does that mean for the words he willed into existence? Well, because no part of him can be contradicting his own will, it must mean that the interpretation of Genesis has to be allegorical. This implies Adam & Eve weren't literal beings which then means we didn't descend from them.

Dominoes.

This is where the problem begins, as the entire Bible gets knocked down like dominoes from literal history to allegorical interpretation. The 4 000 or so year family tree leading up to Jesus is supposed to be an unbroken series of relatives, but we have just shown that through God's will there was no first couple to start this off. More to the point, Original Sin never physically occurred so what does it actually mean for Jesus to be redeeming us of something that entered the world "through one man"?. Well, whatever Jesus is saving us from, it definitely isn't Original Sin. So, why then does Jesus, i.e. God, say that's exactly what he's doing?

Do-mi-NOES.

God is not a deceiver. From one extremity of his will to another, there cannot be any contradictions. But we have himself telling us through Jesus that he is here to save us from Original Sin. But we logically showed that from the universe he willed it follows that his intention wasn't to take the words he willed literally. Therefore, like Adam & Eve knocking the historicity of the Bible down from creation onwards, Jesus the Christ knocks down God's apparent and logical will in reverse. Jesus' own words makes it seem like God's written word must actually be taken literally.



It seems like God is at war with his own will which to us looks like God is deceiving somewhere along the line. The only way to avoid this is if he willed his own non-existence i.e. there was no Judeo-Christian god in the beginning who willed things contradictory to his own will. More probable though, is that we're dealing with nothing more than Bronze Age superstition.

Doesn't this just show that a literal interpretation is false due to contradictions but an allegorical one isn't necessarily? The trinity of "God" could exist and "God" could have created the universe and you could remove all the contradictions out, could you not?

No where in the bible is the earth nor the universe given a 'born on date.' You or rather the orginal source of this arguement is confusing a very specific apologetic for biblical content.
Therefore invalidating the conclusion of this arguement. in that a possiable interpertation or understanding about what the bible doesn't actually speak of, is not the same as actual biblical content.

(October 31, 2012 at 11:20 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Doesn't this just show that a literal interpretation is false due to contradictions but an allegorical one isn't necessarily? The trinity of "God" could exist and "God" could have created the universe and you could remove all the contradictions out, could you not?

If it's all allegorical, then how do we interpret the life of Jesus? What exactly was he redeeming us from? His entire message falls apart.

EDIT: by his "life" I mean that because his relatives leading up to him are all allegorical, how do we actually make sense of Jesus' ministry? We're left with no choice but to suppose Jesus' life wasn't an earthly occurrence.

---

(October 31, 2012 at 11:30 am)Drich Wrote: No where in the bible is the earth nor the universe given a 'born on date.'

Evolution is another observed occurrence in God's universe. Adam & Eve seem allegorical again.

Quote:You or rather the orginal source of this arguement

100% my thoughts thank you very much.

Quote: is confusing a very specific apologetic for biblical content.
Therefore invalidating the conclusion of this arguement. in that a possiable interpertation or understanding about what the bible doesn't actually speak of, is not the same as actual biblical content.

Once again, evolution my friend.

(October 31, 2012 at 11:30 am)Drich Wrote: No where in the bible is the earth nor the universe given a 'born on date.' You or rather the orginal source of this arguement is confusing a very specific apologetic for biblical content.
Therefore invalidating the conclusion of this arguement. in that a possiable interpertation or understanding about what the bible doesn't actually speak of, is not the same as actual biblical content.

The bible gives many "born on" dates for things, specifically relative to other things. The creation account is chock full of them. Genesis 14 (as an example that cuts through your bullshit) puts the "born on" date of the earth (and curiously seed bearing plants, trees, and fruiting flora) before the "born on" date of the sun and moon. No matter what you choose to interpret the "days" in genesis as that will yield a date. That those dates cannot be reconciled with reality is again independent of whatever you choose to interpret the "days" in genesis as. There is no need to address a specific apologetic because there is no possible means of reconciliation.

(October 31, 2012 at 11:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(October 31, 2012 at 11:20 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Doesn't this just show that a literal interpretation is false due to contradictions but an allegorical one isn't necessarily? The trinity of "God" could exist and "God" could have created the universe and you could remove all the contradictions out, could you not?

If it's all allegorical, then how do we interpret the life of Jesus? What exactly was he redeeming us from? His entire message falls apart.

EDIT: by his "life" I mean that because his relatives leading up to him are all allegorical, how do we actually make sense of Jesus' ministry? We're left with no choice but to suppose Jesus' life wasn't an earthly occurrence.

---

(October 31, 2012 at 11:30 am)Drich Wrote: No where in the bible is the earth nor the universe given a 'born on date.'

Evolution is another observed occurrence in God's universe. Adam & Eve seem allegorical again.

Quote:You or rather the orginal source of this arguement

100% my thoughts thank you very much.

Quote: is confusing a very specific apologetic for biblical content.
Therefore invalidating the conclusion of this arguement. in that a possiable interpertation or understanding about what the bible doesn't actually speak of, is not the same as actual biblical content.

Once again, evolution my friend.

The bible does not confirm nor deny the existance of evolution buddy. The only account given is in what happens in the Garden. The only thing we can say for sure is that it did not happen there.

(October 31, 2012 at 11:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If it's all allegorical, then how do we interpret the life of Jesus? What exactly was he redeeming us from?

I have no idea, but that doesn't prove that there isn't something that he's redeeming us from.

Quote:[...]by his "life" I mean that because his relatives leading up to him are all allegorical, how do we actually make sense of Jesus' ministry?

If the virgin birth was allegorical then the literal existence of Jesus as god incarnate could still be possible, but by different means. I have no idea how. But it's a logical possibility in that there's no logical contradiction that shows that that can't be so.

Drich Wrote:The bible does not confirm nor deny the existance of evolution buddy. The only account given is in what happens in the Garden. The only thing we can say for sure is that it did not happen there.

Forget the words God willed for a second. You've forgotten that his first will (the universe) is returning an explanation that we now call evolution. Assuming we're not being deceived, this dictates that God's words are allegorical.

(October 31, 2012 at 11:41 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:The bible gives many "born on" dates for things, specifically relative to other things. The creation account is chock full of them. Genesis 14 (as an example that cuts through your bullshit)

The bulk of Genesis 14 is about the lot's captivity. I read Gen 14 and did not see a "born on date." Are you sure you have the right reference. If so then please explain/show it to me.

Quote:puts the "born on" date of the earth (and curiously seed bearing plants, trees, and fruiting flora) before the "born on" date of the sun and moon. No matter what you choose to interpret the "days" in genesis as that will yield a date. That those dates cannot be reconciled with reality is again independent of whatever you choose to interpret the "days" in genesis as.

In the "Days of creation" There isn't a time line that has been established as to how long 'in the beginning" actually was, nor what took place then, for: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

This is a statement made part from what happened on "Day one" (The creation of Light.) All of these elements God created "In the beginning" Before light was created on Day one. And again "In the beginning" There isn't a time framed mentioned. So again. No Born on date

Quote:There is no need to address a specific apologetic because there is no possible means of reconciliation.

I know you want this to be true so that you can dismiss what you can't responsiably argue. So lets see if/when you fall back on this little escape clause you tagged onto your opening arguement.

---

(October 31, 2012 at 11:54 am)FallentoReason Wrote: [quote="Drich"]The bible does not confirm nor deny the existance of evolution buddy. The only account given is in what happens in the Garden. The only thing we can say for sure is that it did not happen there.

Forget the words God willed for a second. You've forgotten that his first will (the universe) is returning an explanation that we now call evolution. Assuming we're not being deceived, this dictates that God's words are allegorical.

Not nessarily. For this could also mean we simply do not have a complete understanding of God word, nor the universe He created. How persumptious does one have to be to boast a conclusion with only a partial understanding? This to mee seems like a fools folly.

(October 31, 2012 at 11:53 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:

(October 31, 2012 at 11:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If it's all allegorical, then how do we interpret the life of Jesus? What exactly was he redeeming us from?

I have no idea, but that doesn't prove that there isn't something that he's redeeming us from.

Quote:[...]by his "life" I mean that because his relatives leading up to him are all allegorical, how do we actually make sense of Jesus' ministry?

If the virgin birth was allegorical then the literal existence of Jesus as god incarnate could still be possible, but by different means. I have no idea how. But it's a logical possibility in that there's no logical contradiction that shows that that can't be so.

I can see a few possibilities stemming from this:

100% allegory

No A&E means no earthly Jesus. Just revelations of him through the spirit. The problem is that we still have those verses that insist A&E were literal humans...not too sure where to go from here.

Jesus existed somehow

This is really saying something about God's properties; that he couldn't control how his word would turn out. If we have to deny all the apparent connections between the OT and NT and say Jesus was born indepenent of what the OT says, then that's just a pretty sloppy job of God willing his word into existence. This isn't very intellectually satisfying, but I guess it could be. I don't know what that even means for the theology then.

---

Drich Wrote:Not nessarily. For this could also mean we simply do not have a complete understanding of God word, nor the universe He created. How persumptious does one have to be to boast a conclusion with only a partial understanding? This to mee seems like a fools folly.

So I'm presomptuous while as a Christian you readily claim on a whim that you know where the universe came from? Evolution is evident. I highly doubt we've misunderstood why we have a tail bone, why snakes have pelvic bones, why our DNA is 98% to that of monkey's DNA, why whales have undeveloped hind legs etc etc. All of this would be deceptive if evolution is wrong. Therefore, through God's will, Genesis is allegorical.