I believe the Bible is God's Word

[Ravenshire]

Which god?

Leave it to you, to get on here and post stupid.

You're calling someone else's post stupid?!?

That is rich!

[Astreja]

G'day all - I believe the Bible is God's Word - I wondered what you would say to that?

I believe it's over 95% fiction with a handful of historical and geographical facts thrown in to make it seem more authentic.

If it were the word of a god, it's the word of a particularly stupid and ill-tempered god.

[snowtracks]

For millennia, the first two verses of Genesis were thought to be only poetic. However, they have been shown to be scientific in recent years.
Verse 1 - The Universe has been determined to have a beginning (Ref: the space-time theorems) as shown conclusively by authors George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Steven Hawking in the early 70’s that the 4 dimensions can be traced back to a point of singularity (one dimension).

Genesis 1: 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. *

*Ancient Earth may have been a "water world" without any dry land
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/03/ancient-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world-without-any-dry-land#:~:text=New%20research%20suggests%20ancient%20Earth%20was%20a%20water,true%20ocean%20world%20some%203%20billion%20years%20ago.

[Fake Messiah]

However, they have been shown to be scientific in recent years.
Verse 1 - The Universe has been determined to have a beginning (Ref: the space-time theorems) as shown conclusively by authors George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Steven Hawking in the early 70’s that the 4 dimensions can be traced back to a point of singularity (one dimension).

Genesis 1: 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. *

No. This method of cherry-picking the scripture and combining it with confirmation bias doesn't prove that the book of Genesis is scientific. For one thing, your deeply flawed method can be used to "prove" every creation myth in the world as scientific:

An ancient Chinese myth tells us that everything started in chaos. The universe was like a black egg (a black hole?). A god named Pan Gu, wielding an axe, breaks the egg and the heavens begin to expand. The fleas and lice on Pan Gu's body evolve into humankind.

In the Apache tale, nothing existed in the beginning—no Earth, no sky, no sun, no moon. Out of the darkness a thin disk appeared within which sat a bearded man, the Creator, the One Who Lives Above.

The Tahitian story begins with Taaroa, who just was. He found himself all alone in the void. He calls in every direction and nothing replies, so he changes himself into the universe.

The Tahitian story begins with Taaroa, who just was. He found himself all alone in the void. He calls in every direction and nothing replies, so he changes himself into the universe.

This is all by using your method of taking what you see scientific and ignoring the blatantly wrong. So In the Bible and Qur'an, a presumably preexisting God creates the universe in six days. Following the story in Genesis, Earth is created on the first day. Four days later, God creates the sun, moon, and stars.

Now, what does science tell us about the origin of the universe? Observations indicate that Earth was not formed until nine billion years after the initiation of the big bang, grossly contradicting the sequence of events presented in Genesis. Furthermore, the Bible seems to imply that the creation happened rather recently—on the order of ten thousand years ago. At that time, scripture says that all the "kinds" of living things were created and since then have remained immutable, in disagreement with evolution. Throughout the Bible, the universe is referred to as a "firmament" that sits above a flat, immovable Earth.

The Chinese myth described above provides an account closer to the scientific one than the Bible's myth, picturing an expanding universe beginning in complete chaos and suggesting the evolution of life. However, it can hardly be considered an accurate description of the scientific data.

[zebo-the-fat]

One more point, the "big bang" was not the start of the universe, it was the point where a pre existing super dense object started to expand into what we see today. The big bang says nothing about how this object came into existence.

[brewer]

Leave it to you me, to get on here and post stupid.

FTFY

[Ahriman]

"which god" is not such a great question, everyone knows what Christians mean when they say "God"

[Deesse23]

For millennia, the first two verses of Genesis were thought to be only poetic. However, they have been shown to be scientific in recent years.

Nope, they havent, and you know it. Why the lying for your god? Is lying a virtue in your religion?

[The Valkyrie]

I mean, that's not what it was at all, but I don't like the Bible either.

Yeah, it was not written by Bronze Age goat herders or compiled in the Dark Ages.

I've found that a lot of atheists don't use terms like this literally. They are comfortable, in their own language, speaking in metaphor or allegory.

See what I mean about controlling the ignorant?

[brewer]

Trying to shoehorn god into science is an act of desperation. God is unnecessary.