Evidence for God from Science

The prevailing claim of the Abrahamic religions is that through either direct construct or divine inspiration god saw to it that his word was recorded, and recorded correctly. And my guess is that, being god, he would have seen to it that this word was both understandable and unambiguous. Moreover, he would never be so derelict and inefficient as to fill it with inconsequentials or irrelevancies. He said what had to be said, and nothing more and nothing less.

Yet, today we have nearly couple hundred versions of the Bible in English alone. Why so many? Because people disagree as to what the Bible should say and/or how. Take Isaiah 45:7 where the Hebrew word רַע ra` is translated as

....evil
....disaster
....calamity
....doom
....trouble(s)
....bad times
....discord
....woe
....hard times

depending on which version of the Bible one reads.

So, which is right? And how would one know? Thing is, they don't say the same thing. Evil is hardly a synonym for hard times, nor is woe synonymous with doom. I doubt that god would ever have penned such confusion in his original, permitting his followers to fumble over his words or mistake what he was trying to get across. Consider: as a history teacher would you hand out different reasons for the origin of WWI to each student? Of course not. So one has to wonder why god went to the trouble having his word recorded and then not care how it was passed along. Either it wasn't meant to impact anyone other than those who read the original text, or he simply doesn't care what later readers get out of it. In effect, it doesn't matter today if one Christian believes he created evil and another gets the impression he only created hard times. If it did matter, then one would expect god to set things straight, making sure that the word he took the trouble to set forth was clear and unambiguous; that every English Bible said the very same thing, either literally or by implication. There wouldn't be nine English versions of רַע ra` meaning very different things. God would make sure that in Isaiah 45:7 every reader knows he had created evil, or whatever, and not something else.

Because of the preceding I can only surmise that god doesn't really care what the Christian does with his word. "Believe this or believe that, I really don't care. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by works? Fine. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by my grace? Fine. It really doesn't matter. Believe whatever you like."

Audacity wrote:The prevailing claim of the Abrahamic religions is that through either direct construct or divine inspiration god saw to it that his word was recorded, and recorded correctly. And my guess is that, being god, he would have seen to it that this word was both understandable and unambiguous. Moreover, he would never be so derelict and inefficient as to fill it with inconsequentials or irrelevancies. He said what had to be said, and nothing more and nothing less.

Yet, today we have nearly couple hundred versions of the Bible in English alone. Why so many? Because people disagree as to what the Bible should say and/or how. Take Isaiah 45:7 where the Hebrew word רַע ra` is translated as

....evil
....disaster
....calamity
....doom
....trouble(s)
....bad times
....discord
....woe
....hard times

depending on which version of the Bible one reads.

So, which is right? And how would one know? Thing is, they don't say the same thing. Evil is hardly a synonym for hard times, nor is woe synonymous with doom. I doubt that god would ever have penned such confusion in his original, permitting his followers to fumble over his words or mistake what he was trying to get across. Consider: as a history teacher would you hand out different reasons for the origin of WWI to each student? Of course not. So one has to wonder why god went to the trouble having his word recorded and then not care how it was passed along. Either it wasn't meant to impact anyone other than those who read the original text, or he simply doesn't care what later readers get out of it. In effect, it doesn't matter today if one Christian believes he created evil and another gets the impression he only created hard times. If it did matter, then one would expect god to set things straight, making sure that the word he took the trouble to set forth was clear and unambiguous; that every English Bible said the very same thing, either literally or by implication. There wouldn't be nine English versions of רַע ra` meaning very different things. God would make sure that in Isaiah 45:7 every reader knows he had created evil, or whatever, and not something else.

Because of the preceding I can only surmise that god doesn't really care what the Christian does with his word. "Believe this or believe that, I really don't care. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by works? Fine. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by my grace? Fine. It really doesn't matter. Believe whatever you like."

As a Christian it bothers me too about all of the different translations of the bible,especially when I see Christians hiding behind a particular translation in order to defend their interpretation,instead of really trying to dig into the word and find the truth of it and let the chips fall where they may. But I cannot do anything about it,so I leave that up to God.

Still I believe we can find the truth of God's word if we read and study it,however I think most don't and just follow along with whatever minister they like,instead of really digging into it themselves. There is really no excuse with so many bible study tools we have access to,but so many times people don't take the time. This can lead to flawed doctrines in the church,still nothing about all of the different translations is a reason to reject God or his word.Nobody has an excuse whether they are Christian or not.We have God's word and we can read and study it if we choose to but we must choose to do it if we truly want the truth of God's word.

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have God's word and we can read and study it if we choose to but we must choose to do it if we truly want the truth of God's word.

But which word (translation) is it you've chosen to read and study, and why that particular one? No two are the same.

Audacity wrote:The prevailing claim of the Abrahamic religions is that through either direct construct or divine inspiration god saw to it that his word was recorded, and recorded correctly. And my guess is that, being god, he would have seen to it that this word was both understandable and unambiguous. Moreover, he would never be so derelict and inefficient as to fill it with inconsequentials or irrelevancies. He said what had to be said, and nothing more and nothing less.

Yet, today we have nearly couple hundred versions of the Bible in English alone. Why so many? Because people disagree as to what the Bible should say and/or how. Take Isaiah 45:7 where the Hebrew word רַע ra` is translated as

....evil
....disaster
....calamity
....doom
....trouble(s)
....bad times
....discord
....woe
....hard times

depending on which version of the Bible one reads.

So, which is right? And how would one know? Thing is, they don't say the same thing. Evil is hardly a synonym for hard times, nor is woe synonymous with doom. I doubt that god would ever have penned such confusion in his original, permitting his followers to fumble over his words or mistake what he was trying to get across. Consider: as a history teacher would you hand out different reasons for the origin of WWI to each student? Of course not. So one has to wonder why god went to the trouble having his word recorded and then not care how it was passed along. Either it wasn't meant to impact anyone other than those who read the original text, or he simply doesn't care what later readers get out of it. In effect, it doesn't matter today if one Christian believes he created evil and another gets the impression he only created hard times. If it did matter, then one would expect god to set things straight, making sure that the word he took the trouble to set forth was clear and unambiguous; that every English Bible said the very same thing, either literally or by implication. There wouldn't be nine English versions of רַע ra` meaning very different things. God would make sure that in Isaiah 45:7 every reader knows he had created evil, or whatever, and not something else.

Because of the preceding I can only surmise that god doesn't really care what the Christian does with his word. "Believe this or believe that, I really don't care. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by works? Fine. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by my grace? Fine. It really doesn't matter. Believe whatever you like."

I think your guess (premise) is wrong that God would not confuse.
Somewhere in there, amidst the Abrahamic stories, you'll found a Tower of Babel, right?

Nonetheless, non-Christians have far greater things to overcome than this or that word, let alone books considered holy.
People do not disbelieve in God because they think the Bible contradicts. And many people come to Christ inspite of Scripture.

Maybe you should work forwards starting with the question why anything exists at all.

A good point, I think. To me, though, in the example you've given, the words in the different translations are roughly synonymous, and I guess without evil there wouldn't be hard times, doom or calamity. I don't think the differences between translations are that huge - new translations are generally an effort to express God's word in the best currently-understood language. Many Christians like to read a passage in more that one version sometimes to get a well-rounded sense of it - it's not that the translations would be starkly different in important teaching.

I very much doubt that different translations would cause the way of salvation to be confused - they're all pretty clear about the necessity of accepting God's grace and how God wants us to do good works once we are saved.

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have God's word and we can read and study it if we choose to but we must choose to do it if we truly want the truth of God's word.

But which word (translation) is it you've chosen to read and study, and why that particular one? No two are the same.

I think we all have our go to bible,however if I'm dealing with a certian topic that is not so clear which is rare I read several different translations and I try to get to the truth of it and even get into the Hebrew or Greek if I have to.That is all we can do.We have bible study tools that make it easy to do too.

Kurieuo wrote: I think your guess (premise) is wrong that God would not confuse.
Somewhere in there, amidst the Abrahamic stories, you'll found a Tower of Babel, right?

So you think that because god had reason enough to make people speak different languages, he had good reason to make sure his message was so confusing as not to be understood? REALLY?

Maybe you should work forwards starting with the question why anything exists at all.

But why should I care about such an uninteresting question. It's a question better posed to young children in Sunday schools.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have God's word and we can read and study it if we choose to but we must choose to do it if we truly want the truth of God's word.

But which word (translation) is it you've chosen to read and study, and why that particular one? No two are the same.

I think we all have our go to bible,however if I'm dealing with a certian topic that is not so clear which is rare I read several different translations and I try to get to the truth of it and even get into the Hebrew or Greek if I have to.That is all we can do.We have bible study tools that make it easy to do too.

So there's no guarantee that you will ever reach any such truth. And from what I've seen, god doesn't really care one way or the other: it ain't no big deal, this truth getting thing.

I think throwing your hands up and saying "It can't be known!" is a poor way to understand something that is complex, and requires much study and, yes, work.

Audacity wrote: So there's no guarantee that you will ever reach any such truth. And from what I've seen, god doesn't really care one way or the other: it ain't no big deal, this truth getting thing.

Okay then. Farewell.

Audacity wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: I think your guess (premise) is wrong that God would not confuse.
Somewhere in there, amidst the Abrahamic stories, you'll found a Tower of Babel, right?

So you think that because god had reason enough to make people speak different languages, he had good reason to make sure his message was so confusing as not to be understood? REALLY?

Notwithstanding I think Scripture is quite clear,
Your premise is wrong. That if God reveal Himself, He would reveal Himself fully.

Why would you think God wouldn't prefer us to seek truth out, including Himself, rather than present everything on a silver platter?

Audacity wrote:

Maybe you should work forwards starting with the question why anything exists at all.

But why should I care about such an uninteresting question. It's a question better posed to young children in Sunday schools.

Seriously? Then I won't waste my time further with your own foolishness.

Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:We have God's word and we can read and study it if we choose to but we must choose to do it if we truly want the truth of God's word.

But which word (translation) is it you've chosen to read and study, and why that particular one? No two are the same.

I think we all have our go to bible,however if I'm dealing with a certian topic that is not so clear which is rare I read several different translations and I try to get to the truth of it and even get into the Hebrew or Greek if I have to.That is all we can do.We have bible study tools that make it easy to do too.

So there's no guarantee that you will ever reach any such truth. And from what I've seen, god doesn't really care one way or the other: it ain't no big deal, this truth getting thing.

I think you're taking the lazy approach,looking for an excuse to not trust God's word.The bible is written in a way to where God wants us to seek and find the truth,but we must be willing to do it and you are not. I'll tell you now that there are some things we will not know the full truth about until we get to heaven but in God's word most every question you could have is answered somewhere in it.Especially the most important things like being saved,being born again,how to live a Christian life,etc are all there . You can choose to not trust God's word however do not think that on judgment day you will have an excuse,because the moment you bring up different translations,etc as an excuse God will show you bible study tools that you had access to but never used.

Lotsa Versions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u92GbUH-SCA

abelcainsbrother wrote: I think you're taking the lazy approach,looking for an excuse to not trust God's word.

Actually, I need no excuse. Christians provided plenty of them.

The bible is written in a way to where God wants us to seek and find the truth,but we must be willing to do it and you are not.

By insuring that it be translated into almost 200 English versions? Evidently then, with the passage of time as more and more versions have become available god is increasing the difficulty in finding this truth. One would best to have been born 1,500 years ago when the selection of Bible translations was much narrower and the task much easier.

And really, you think god is playing a game of Seek and Find? Got any idea why he would play such a game? And, what happens to those who, for whatever reason, fail to "Find"? "To bad, sonny, I know you tried as best you could, but the door to Eternal Fire and Brimstone is right behind you."

Kurieuo wrote:Notwithstanding I think Scripture is quite clear,
Your premise is wrong. That if God reveal Himself, He would reveal Himself fully.

My only premise, actually a conclusion, is that because god has let his word become so corrupted it seems obvious he really doesn't care what it says.

Let's not make any more of this than what it is.

Why would you think God wouldn't prefer us to seek truth out, including Himself, rather than present everything on a silver platter?

Haven't the slightest idea. Why does he want the Christian to play a game of Seek and Find, with a real chance of failure, rather than simply tell a person that in order to get into his heaven all one has to do is adore, praise, and supplicate himself before god?

Audacity wrote:

Maybe you should work forwards starting with the question why anything exists at all.

But why should I care about such an uninteresting question. It's a question better posed to young children in Sunday schools.

Seriously? Then I won't waste my time further with your own foolishness.

Yeah, I thought this might make you cut bait and run. Sorry to see I was right.

Hi Audacity

Tell me where it says anywhere that you are condemned for not finding.
You are condemned only if you reject Christ. How can you reject what you don`t know, or cannot find? If you are genuinely seeking, you will eventually find, and God knows what is in your heart.

As for Scripture, I know very little and I found God and Christ so the Bible isn`t the be all and end of all of finding Christ.

As for why so many differing accounts, translations, well... dig. Dig for the truth.

As for the Sunday School question of why anything exists at all.... you dismiss it, why? Surely that is the first question to ask?