Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Unless you look up the words in a dictionary:

"king·dom (kngdm)
n.
1. A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign.
2.
a. The eternal spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ.
b. The realm of this sovereignty.
3. A realm or sphere in which one thing is dominant: the kingdom of the imagination.
4. One of the three main divisions (animal, vegetable, and mineral) into which natural organisms and objects are classified.
5. In the Linnaean taxonomic system, the highest taxonomic classification into which organisms are grouped, based on fundamental similarities and common ancestry. The Linnaean system designates five such classifications: animals, plants, fungi, prokaryotes, and protoctists. See Table at taxonomy."

"Second Coming
Christian Theol. the expected return of Christ, at the Last Judgment"

The passages you quoted indicate that Christ's ministry establishes his sovereignty while the second coming refers to his presence during the last judgment.

Choosing a Catholic explanation only because it was the best one in one particular wikipedia article it says:

"The Kingdom of God began with Christ's death and Resurrection and must be further extended by Christians until it has been brought into perfection by Christ at the end of time.[25]"

So the real question is did his followers not taste death until they saw His death?"

Thus does Who is Lakeman obfuscate the issue and demonstrate why there are more than 2500 sects of Christians in the world today. The really sad part is that they worship a completely incompetent God who couldn't even get the THOU SHALT NOT KILL commandment right.

 

[clarkatticus]

In your reply you hit on the answer, belief is not faith. I do not believe in a god as I have no faith. Faith assumes at least an outcome or answer, there is none for me as I do not believe it is possible. Logic to me says that civilizations from all over the world created faiths to explain that which they could not readily prove, to believe in one god would be to not believe in another, making either the rest of the world wrong, or all the world wrong (excluding athiests)-I choose the latter. The reason for this thread is to calm the fears of the believers, not to understand athiests or even debate them. In all your hearts you have doubts, logic demands it. If you were so sure of your own beliefs you would not assail my lack of faith, you would in fact not care-confident as you are in yours.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Matthew 16:28



Unlike much of what is in the Bible, that verse seems pretty clear.

one line, 5 versions...just think about that ...spread out for 2000 years, with much of the first part all hand written.....but I am sure no meanings words or anything ever changed ...after all its the word of God...it just happens he has many personalitys...so all are correct even if they are not the same...

Just like when it says one person did something, then someplace else says it was someone else...both are true..even if thats impossible..

 

[Dr.Who]

one line, 5 versions...just think about that ...spread out for 2000 years, with much of the first part all hand written.....but I am sure no meanings words or anything ever changed ...after all its the word of God...it just happens he has many personalitys...so all are correct even if they are not the same...

Just like when it says one person did something, then someplace else says it was someone else...both are true..even if thats impossible..

Meanings of words do change. show us a case in which it has resulted in important misunderstandings? I bet there are some.

But I also bet you will not be able to show that it says someone in one place and someone else in another.

 

[PLC1]

Unless you look up the words in a dictionary:

"king·dom (kngdm)
n.
1. A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign.
2.
a. The eternal spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ.
b. The realm of this sovereignty.
3. A realm or sphere in which one thing is dominant: the kingdom of the imagination.
4. One of the three main divisions (animal, vegetable, and mineral) into which natural organisms and objects are classified.
5. In the Linnaean taxonomic system, the highest taxonomic classification into which organisms are grouped, based on fundamental similarities and common ancestry. The Linnaean system designates five such classifications: animals, plants, fungi, prokaryotes, and protoctists. See Table at taxonomy."

"Second Coming
Christian Theol. the expected return of Christ, at the Last Judgment"

The passages you quoted indicate that Christ's ministry establishes his sovereignty while the second coming refers to his presence during the last judgment.

Choosing a Catholic explanation only because it was the best one in one particular wikipedia article it says:

"The Kingdom of God began with Christ's death and Resurrection and must be further extended by Christians until it has been brought into perfection by Christ at the end of time.[25]"

So the real question is did his followers not taste death until they saw His death?"

So, the "son of Man coming in his kingdom" means Christ's death, not his return?

I suppose if we're still expecting his second coming, that is how the words have to be interpreted.

How many people today actually expect to see Christ come to Earth and establish his kingdom, I wonder?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Meanings of words do change. show us a case in which it has resulted in important misunderstandings? I bet there are some.

But I also bet you will not be able to show that it says someone in one place and someone else in another.

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, "Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are."

-------
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

From
2 Samuel 24: 1
and
I Chronicles 2 1:1



Let he without sin cast the first stone...there is question about should this even be in the bible...and the earliest manuscripts of John, have this story...in some cases it does not even show up till the 12 century...Most likey just was added by a scribe who thought it fit well...

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=5052156&m=5052159

for much of its history...the bible was done by hand...by people who had there own ideas, and there own desires of what they would like it to say...and those copys are copied by others...who may have said had there own issues..and sometimes actually changed others that they where coping..not out of want, but out of the idea they felt that the guy before did it wrong so they felt there where correcting it...

the man who was a Leper, who today God felt compassion and he touched him and healed him
Early text say...he got Angry....

now scholars actually think that the Angry is the wrong one, even though its older...and scribes seeing that this did not make sense...they changed it to compassionate...


the inverview audio I posted does a better job, and the book even better of talking about this.though just so you know, its about a half hour long.

 

[PLC1]

The Bible is a set of ancient writings that have been copied and recopied, translated and retranslated over and over again over the centuries. None of it is to be taken literally.

However, none of that disproves the existence of god, only that humans aren't such good record keepers, at least over the long term.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Bible is a set of ancient writings that have been copied and recopied, translated and retranslated over and over again over the centuries. None of it is to be taken literally.

However, none of that disproves the existence of god, only that humans aren't such good record keepers, at least over the long term.

as stated long ago, you can't disprove God. Just like I can't disprove the Greek gods, or the Roman ones. And I can't disprove that if I stand in a dark closet with nothing that lets me see outside the closet...that everything outside the closet does not turn pink...but if I try to videotape it, it will stay the same...Its a stupid idea, but I can't disprove it...I can't disprove that a invisible man is watching me right now from the hallway....

 

[PLC1]

as stated long ago, you can't disprove God. Just like I can't disprove the Greek gods, or the Roman ones. And I can't disprove that if I stand in a dark closet with nothing that lets me see outside the closet...that everything outside the closet does not turn pink...but if I try to videotape it, it will stay the same...Its a stupid idea, but I can't disprove it...I can't disprove that a invisible man is watching me right now from the hallway....

Actually, I'm that invisible man down the hallway, watching you typing on your computer. I can see when you are sitting in your underwear, thinking no one is there. I see when you scratch yourself.

 

[dahermit]

Meanings of words do change. show us a case in which it has resulted in important misunderstandings? I bet there are some.

But I also bet you will not be able to show that it says someone in one place and someone else in another.

For years I have heard, as standard church rhetoric, that the Bible is the inspired word of God. In that context, the meaning of what is written in the Bible then, does not change...God's inspiration would control the continuing message. You church ladies cannot have it both ways.

 

[bododie]

Does God exist? Maybe you should all ask Insurance companies. Lol.

 

[Dr.Who]

So, the "son of Man coming in his kingdom" means Christ's death, not his return?

No, it does not mean his death it still means his kingdom. Some believe it began with his death. The Son of Man is indeed a title for Christ but kingdom does not refer to his coming again. It refers to his authority on earth as king. Christ is King as in Kingdom - king, kingdom, see the connection.

Surely just by living in this country you have figured out that Christians think of Christ as king. The word Christ after all means anointed as king. Surely you have heard at least one Christmas song on the radio that mentions it.

How many people today actually expect to see Christ come to Earth and establish his kingdom, I wonder?

I would hope none have that point of view since even non-believers should understand that the kingdom is already considered to have been established.

Even non believers should be smart enough to figure out that a second coming requires a first coming and that the first one is the one where his kingdom on earth is believed to have been established.

 

[Dr.Who]

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, "Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are."

-------
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

From
2 Samuel 24: 1
and
I Chronicles 2 1:1

You did your homework well and rose to the challenge better than I would have imagined. How is it that a person like you who can do so well in one instance can fail so miserably in others to understand? I suspect that it is not a lack of intelligence on your part.

Yes the bible states exactly that two different people were responsible for inciting David - of course it is because both did incite David each for his own reason.

I was wrong not to foresee that an instance like this would be found. The challenge should have been more closely based on your post that the two people who did the thing could not possibly both have done it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Let he without sin cast the first stone...there is question about should this even be in the bible...and the earliest manuscripts of John, have this story...in some cases it does not even show up till the 12 century...Most likey just was added by a scribe who thought it fit well...

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=5052156&m=5052159

You are right that that passage is not in the earliest mss. People do add in later mss but that does not change earlier mss.

Which is not relevant to the question of two people being said to have impossibly done the same thing nor to the meanings of words changing in significant ways.

(and no I don't intend to listen to a lengthy recording but will read text gladly)

 

[Dr.Who]

for much of its history...the bible was done by hand...by people who had there own ideas, and there own desires of what they would like it to say...and those copys are copied by others...who may have said had there own issues..and sometimes actually changed others that they where coping..not out of want, but out of the idea they felt that the guy before did it wrong so they felt there where correcting it...

the man who was a Leper, who today God felt compassion and he touched him and healed him
Early text say...he got Angry....

now scholars actually think that the Angry is the wrong one, even though its older...and scribes seeing that this did not make sense...they changed it to compassionate...


the inverview audio I posted does a better job, and the book even better of talking about this.though just so you know, its about a half hour long.

Well I did say I thought you would find an instance of a words meaning changing.

I assume you are talking about the instance in which some translations say Jesus was moved with pity and in others it says Jesus was angry.

I had thought we were talking about words changing meanings not times when the original greek words are the same but a poor translations exist.

As an aside, why would a translator say Jesus was moved with pity when the original greek said that he was angry?

I knew a translator once who told my about a time he was translating the account of Jesus riding into town on a donkey. In the country where he was translating they had no donkeys so he described the animal as having long ears etc. And the people promptly thought he was describing Jesus as riding a rabbit. In another instance (and more relevant) the bible often describes people as having a feeling in their heart just as we do today too. But the original greek does not say heart because the writers didnot consider the heart to be the center of emotion. The original writers considered the liver to be the center of emotion and the original text says "liver". Sometimes translators need to take liberties with actual words to convey the intent.

But we have not been talking about this kind of translation. We were talking about words changing meaning.

So why did the translator say pity and not anger? Jesus had pity toward the man but anger that he was in his plight. I would guess that the translator did not want people to be confused and think that Jesus was angry at the leper. The translator should have used a foot note.

For future reference when I speak of the bible I am not generally thinking of various translations but of the most original text we have.