What makes the bible true

[The King]

You must be an even bigger idiot than the king. Do you have any evidence supporting your lack of belief in big foot, or Zeus perhaps? It's already been explained to you how carm.org is a failure of a site to pull any real information from, other than what's written in the bible. We do not have to prove that your belief is wrong, as you have yet to provide any real evidence that it is right. You quote the bible, then you cite writings that happened after anyone that was alive during jesus' could have written them. And do I need to show you how genesis is wrong, again? It's on the first page of this thread, that by all accounts you haven't read, and continue not to read.

There goes our boy reverting to name-calling yet again, LOL. It's still comical though that he falls into such predictable behavior right on cue every time he gets upset and flustered.

[Maddhattter]

I have heard of it but haven't read it yet. I think I might pick it up this week since this thread has come up.

So, you recommended a book you haven’t read? You have managed to be blatantly dishonest in every post you’ve made in this thread. I’ve not had to lie or misrepresent the demonstrable truth at all. You haven’t even defended anything you’ve said. I bring up points, give demonstrations, and you just ignore. So, you’re both dishonest and willfully ignorant. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? You can’t even respond to challenges to your demonstrable false assertions.

Atheists are all the same. You mound piles of evidence on them and all they can say is "Nope doesn't count" even though for every other non religious subject it's acceptable.

Again, you’re blatantly lying. I’ve demonstrated how you’ve both shown no valid evidence, and how it would not count for any other subject, regardless of what I believe or not. You have failed in every way, and are still continuing to lie.

They can produce no actual evidence for their belief, they can only try and disprove mine.

Your right. As explained before, atheists don’t have to. There is no burden of proof on the atheist, until the atheist makes a positive claim. The fact that you’re not competent enough to see that is no one’s fault but your own, as it’s been explained to you already.

It's easy to keep typing that I'm wrong but that's only their opinion.

Wrong again, I’ve demonstrated and explained how your sources could not be valid evidence. They never had to be rejected, as they were never contenders.

Let's see them produce evidence the bible isn't true/ the manuscripts aren't real.

Again, no one has to. You’ve yet to show that they are. You’ve yet to actually demonstrate anything you intended to. Unless, that is, you intended to demonstrate your inability to perform anything close to legitimate research.

Then I point them to people much more learned than me to get even more evidence and they say no and make up excuses (Very typical).

You’ve pointed us to a load of people and sources that don’t have the education to understand the science and logic behind what they are saying. Just because they have a degree it doesn’t make them valid sources for everything. Again, this has been demonstrated to you. I also point out that you have demonstrated that you understand this concept, and have just moved the goalpost to allow the ignorant ramblings you’ve presented to be called sources.

Anyone interested in looking into Christian apologetics can go to carm.org which is a site I get a lot of resources from.

Right. Going to a single website, especially one with clear admitted bias and policy of dishonesty, is a good way to research anything. So, you’ve successfully gone from just being dishonest yourself, to recommending open liars. Kind of sad, really.

Both Christians and Atheists get on there and debate or post threads on these same topics. And I'm telling you the book, "Learn the bible in 24 hours" is very, very good. I have been a Christian for 15 years and learned things I never knew. Anyways, I pretty much done with this discussion unless someone can produce evidence of their belief. Otherwise this will be the longest thread in history.

So, you jump in, make a bunch of unsupported claims, throw a bunch of invalid references, support and recommend both liars and thieves, then run off claiming that you can tell what is a good book, or what is a good anything is for that matter? I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point, I have to assume that you’ve not bothered to read anything I’ve had to say, as you’ve never responded to any of it with any integrity.

I’ll state again, that I refuse to believe that you are a good representative of the theistic position, on this board or not. You come in here, calling everyone on your side of the fence uneducated, and then proceed to show yourself as the idiot. Surely there is someone here who can defend their faith without the lack of integrity and deceit demonstrated by Stephen4785 in this thread. If you’re out there, I’d welcome an intellectual debate on the topic.

[racrguy]

You must be an even bigger idiot than the king. Do you have any evidence supporting your lack of belief in big foot, or Zeus perhaps? It's already been explained to you how carm.org is a failure of a site to pull any real information from, other than what's written in the bible. We do not have to prove that your belief is wrong, as you have yet to provide any real evidence that it is right. You quote the bible, then you cite writings that happened after anyone that was alive during jesus' could have written them. And do I need to show you how genesis is wrong, again? It's on the first page of this thread, that by all accounts you haven't read, and continue not to read.

[stephen4785]

Stephen I have been enjoying reading your posts. Something I found helped me quite a bit is the book "Case for Christ." Good book.

I have heard of it but haven't read it yet. I think I might pick it up this week since this thread has come up. Atheists are all the same. You mound piles of evidence on them and all they can say is "Nope doesn't count" even though for every other non religious subject it's acceptable. They can produce no actual evidence for their belief, they can only try and disprove mine. It's easy to keep typing that I'm wrong but that's only their opinion. Let's see them produce evidence the bible isn't true/ the manuscripts aren't real. Then I point them to people much more learned than me to get even more evidence and they say no and make up excuses (Very typical). Anyone interested in looking into Christian apologetics can go to carm.org which is a site I get a lot of resources from. Both Christians and Atheists get on there and debate or post threads on these same topics. And I'm telling you the book, "Learn the bible in 24 hours" is very, very good. I have been a Christian for 15 years and learned things I never knew. Anyways, I pretty much done with this discussion unless someone can produce evidence of their belief. Otherwise this will be the longest thread in history.

[racrguy]

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

[Forever_frost]

Stephen I have been enjoying reading your posts. Something I found helped me quite a bit is the book "Case for Christ." Good book.

[Maddhattter]

It's like being on a jury trial....you hear the evidence presented and decide what you think is true based on testimony of eyewitnesses etc.

Your right. In a jury trial, none of your sources would be valid for all the reasons I’ve stated.

Add in some common sense and the lack of evidence from the other side and you make a decision.

No, in a jury trial the only thing the trial is to prove is the guilt. The positive claim, i.e. god/gods exists. The trial is not to prove the innocence of the defendant, i.e. no god/gods exist. So, you analogy is does not support your claim. It does however, properly support mine.

That would at least bring you to the place of considering God plausible.

Demonstrably false, as I’ve explained above.

Here's another good book for you I'm sure you won't read. "Learn the bible in 24 hours" by Chuck Missler. It talks about many of the bible prophecies and when they came true, how God exists outside time/space, how time is curved, The “Big Bang” Models
Steady State Model (Einstein’s Biggest Mistake)
Hesitation Model (Refuted in the 1960s)
Oscillation Model (Refuted by entropy laws, lack of mass)
Inflation Model (Requires antigravity forces never observed)

So, we move from citing authors who are just unqualified to discuss the topic, to one who is unqualified and plagiarizes from other sources? I shouldn’t even have to point out how ridiculous this is.

Seriously, it is a great book if you would just give it a chance. It isn't a hard read either.

I’m sure I’ll be swayed by the arguments of an ignorant thief.
Edit: I originally used the above statement to display how ridiculous it would be to rely on such a source. Then I thought about it, you’re convinced by a bunch of ignorant Bronze-aged goat herders. I guess it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to be swayed by the arguments of an ignorant thief.

You owe it to yourself to investigate...after all if I'm wrong I die and am just dead. If I'm right and you die, your in trouble.

Ah.. Pascal’s Wager. It’s just intellectually lazy. Primarily because it’s demonstrably wrong. The premise of the argument is demonstrably impossible, breaking the entire argument.

C’mon. You ask me to research. I do, and then you can’t be bothered to do a little research on your own? I do not even have to try here. Your arguments have, thus far, been a joke. You can’t keep your own criteria straight, you chastise me because you think I’m doing what you do, and still try to claim that I’m the one with the bias?

I would recommend this book to anyone else interested in knowing the more scientific evidences that point towards a Creator, bible prophecies that were made 3,000 years ago and came true just in the last 70 years...correct to the day (Israel becoming a nation). It also has a chapter showing evidence pointing towards a younger earth (Not 300 billion years old), and did you know that time travels faster or slower depending on your altitude? Of course all these subjects are tied to proving God exists and the bible as being true.

All written by a man who has no qualifications to discuss the topics he espouses. I would recommend this book as well but only if you have no interest in science. If you have absolutely no desire to understand how science determines reality from fantasy, this is a great read.

However, if you care that what you believe is true and in-line with demonstrable reality, I suggest going with science.

It baffles me that there are so many people who thing the bible is just a book written my religious guys to serve some kind of secret purpose to enslave the minds of people.

What baffles me is how this is relevant to the conversation, as everything that one would expect from a book that was “written my religious guys to serve some kind of secret purpose to enslave the minds of people” is exactly what we get from the bible.

For those of you who really want to explore my evidence further... http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Lea.../9780785264293

You’ve presented no valid evidence to explore, so your link is superfluous.

[Maddhattter]

the fact we can prove his followers were brutally killed for their beliefs,

You’ve yet to indicate this beyond your own statements.

plus not to mention the intangibles...such as personal experiences that let us know Jesus is real.

Personal experience falls into the same category as eyewitness testimony. It can never be evidence because people are poor data storage devices. Not to mention the fact that personal experience and eyewitness testimony cannot be tested or verified. We can’t prove they aren’t outright lying.

Atheism only exists in a vacuum.

Which is okay, as it is the default position.

It must disprove theistic proofs.

No, it does not. Atheism makes no claims. It is the opposite of Theism. That’s what the A in Atheism indicates, in case you didn’t know. The true dichotomy here is:

Theism: Having a belief in god/gods.
Atheism: Not having a belief in god/gods.

Had you bothered to read this thread, or jdgregory84’s thread, you would know this.

It cannot prove itself true.

It doesn’t have to.

It is a very weak place to be intellectually.

Except that it’s not. It is the default stance. The Null Hypothesis. No belief involved. Which brings us to…

You have a belief just as I do.

No. I’m not selling something different; I’m just not buying what you are selling. Again, had you bothered to do a little reading yourself, you’d have seen that these demonstrably false assertions have been covered already.

When it comes to the God Hypothesis, we believe in very different ways.

Unless it is based completely on blind faith, there must be some reason you hold to it.

I agree, as my stance isn’t held on blind faith. Yours evidently is, as you’ve shown no valid evidence to support your claim.

That would be your evidence. If you are a true atheist...you have none.

Correct, but again, I need none.

My position has a lot of evidence.

You’ve yet to demonstrate any valid evidence.

It is not "proof" but evidence.

I agree, it’s not proof. Nor is it evidence, as it is from an invalid source.

[Maddhattter]

As I said, no evidence I provide will ever be sufficient for you.

Incorrect. I’ve already outlined the level of evidence that would need to be provided to be sufficient for me. You’ve just yet to supply any valid evidence for anything.

You are the one whose presuppositions are clouding your judgement.

You make this statement, but you fail to provide any qualifications to that statement. You don’t state what presupposition I have, nor do you show how that affects my judgment at all.

You, however, have a clearly stated presupposition, that I quoted directly from you.

If you were to take your hostility towards religion out of it and judge the bible as a historical document, which is what it is, you would see that it is a book like no other in history.

First, I judge the bible as a document, as you’ve failed to even indicate that it can be considered a document that deals with actual historical events. You have shown how a bunch of people who don’t know what they are talking about have to say about science, though.

The fact that manuscripts dated...using science....from 4000 years ago predicted things that happened in Jesus day and things that have happened in the modern day would at least give a reasonable person pause.

If your misleading statement was the whole truth, perhaps you would have a point. However, using your own criteria, Pat Robertson is a divine prophet of God. He has made predictions that happened after he predicted them. Your problem, in both your bible scenario, and the Pat Robertson scenario, are the same. Both have been wrong many more times than they have been right.

We also run into the Spider-man problem, again. Characters in Spider-man make many predictions that take place later in the individual comic and later in the series. It must be TRUFAX!!!! Again, using the criteria you put forth.

All the requirements are met using modern science/archaeology for the manuscripts to be taken as reliable historical fact...same as why we believe Alexander the Great conquered the known world or that the Egyptians had Pharaohs or whatever.

This is another fine example of why you should not rely on sources with no credentials in the subject matter. All that can be shown as reliable is that the bible uses places that existed to stage the story. Much like Spider-man uses New York. You must, using your own criteria, believe that Spider-man protects the streets of New York, and should you go there, you would be able to see him swinging between buildings on his way to fight crime.

But since you do not want to even consider the possibility of it being true, you are looking for any other way to explain it except the facts.

Why must you be dishonest? How does it help your case? Everything I have stated, I’ve demonstrated. I’ve even admitted, more than once, that you might be right. You just have no justification for your belief. Your evidentiary criterion is shit, to the point that it wouldn’t take much to prove that nearly anything exists. Yet, you expect me to believe you? You can’t even provide valid sources to support your claim.

The manuscripts are there, written in the right language for the time, naming places and rulers at the time, dated to be the right time.

Same for Spider-Man. I like this game. In fact, I might adopt your level of criteria and go to New York to try and meet Carnage. It’d be nice to see the Fantastic Four in action. There is a lot of awesome shit that I could believe in, should I follow your level of evidence.

Any other subject and you would accept it as legitimate.

No, I wouldn’t. I’ve explained why I wouldn’t. It does not meet the criteria to support anything.

In the case of shifting the goal post, again you are being, what appears to be, intentionally dishonest. You hold one set of criteria for sources in everything, except when it agrees with your religion. When it agrees with your particular superstition, you make an exception. And I can prove it.

Eyewitness accounts of people who saw it happen,

Irrelevant. Eyewitness testimony is the worst evidence one can produce. Considering that people are terrible data storage and retrieval devices, we can’t rely on what people state they saw. That is why, in science, they have the peer review process. So no one ever has to rely on eyewitness testimony.

no writing denying Jesus miracles from the religious leaders who hated Him (or anyone else from the time for that matter),

Which doesn’t help your case. In fact, it hurts your case, as the documents “denying Jesus miracles from the religious leaders who hated Him” are exactly what we would expect to find, if the narrative were accurate. As the reigning government and religion would have started a propaganda machine to try and bury the information.

What’s more poignant, is the lack of supporting documents. There was a zombie apocalypse that spilled over into the city for the people to see and no extra biblical source mentions it? It’s not like no one would have believed it, people during the time believed it was possible. Yet, nearly no reference to it.

[racrguy]

Here it is in the original Greek text...god is not capitalized, that phrase is never used of the Christian God (god of this world). It is clearly talking about Satan if you look at the chapter in context.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ.
KJV with Strong's
Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest __ the light of the glorious gospel of Christ who is the image of God should shine unto them

As I said, no evidence I provide will ever be sufficient for you. You are the one whose presuppositions are clouding your judgement. If you were to take your hostility towards religion out of it and judge the bible as a historical document, which is what it is, you would see that it is a book like no other in history. The fact that manuscripts dated...using science....from 4000 years ago predicted things that happened in Jesus day and things that have happened in the modern day would at least give a reasonable person pause. All the requirements are met using modern science/archaeology for the manuscripts to be taken as reliable historical fact...same as why we believe Alexander the Great conquered the known world or that the Egyptians had Pharaohs or whatever. But since you do not want to even consider the possibility of it being true, you are looking for any other way to explain it except the facts. The manuscripts are there, written in the right language for the time, naming places and rulers at the time, dated to be the right time. Any other subject and you would accept it as legitimate. Eyewitness accounts of people who saw it happen, no writing denying Jesus miracles from the religious leaders who hated Him (or anyone else from the time for that matter), the fact we can prove his followers were brutally killed for their beliefs, plus not to mention the intangibles...such as personal experiences that let us know Jesus is real. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It cannot prove itself true. It is a very weak place to be intellectually. You have a belief just as I do. Unless it is based completely on blind faith, there must be some reason you hold to it. That would be your evidence. If you are a true atheist...you have none. My position has a lot of evidence. It is not "proof" but evidence. It's like being on a jury trial....you hear the evidence presented and decide what you think is true based on testimony of eyewitnesses etc. Add in some common sense and the lack of evidence from the other side and you make a decision. That would at least bring you to the place of considering God plausible. Here's another good book for you I'm sure you won't read. "Learn the bible in 24 hours" by Chuck Missler. It talks about many of the bible prophecies and when they came true, how God exists outside time/space, how time is curved, The “Big Bang” Models
Steady State Model (Einstein’s Biggest Mistake)
Hesitation Model (Refuted in the 1960s)
Oscillation Model (Refuted by entropy laws, lack of mass)
Inflation Model (Requires antigravity forces never observed)
Seriously, it is a great book if you would just give it a chance. It isn't a hard read either. You owe it to yourself to investigate...after all if I'm wrong I die and am just dead. If I'm right and you die, your in trouble.
I would recommend this book to anyone else interested in knowing the more scientific evidences that point towards a Creator, bible prophecies that were made 3,000 years ago and came true just in the last 70 years...correct to the day (Israel becoming a nation). It also has a chapter showing evidence pointing towards a younger earth (Not 300 billion years old), and did you know that time travels faster or slower depending on your altitude? Of course all these subjects are tied to proving God exists and the bible as being true. It baffles me that there are so many people who thing the bible is just a book written my religious guys to serve some kind of secret purpose to enslave the minds of people. For those of you who really want to explore my evidence further... http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Lea.../9780785264293

This is whole different argument than the one I'm on at the moment (Calvinism). I'm not upset. As long as people can debate with respect, that's all I ask. However, being that Corinthians is part of the bible, which I believe to be complete and inerrant, it is an excellent source for us to reference. My point was people can be presented with all the evidence possible but still they won't believe. It's not just an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual one. Makes sense right? If I'm right and there is a God and Satan....Satan wouldn't want people to trust in God so he would do everything in his power to try and convince people we are crazy loons with no valid arguments. I don't hate anyone on here for disagreeing with me. I love debate. But I truly want the people reading to maybe think that there is a possibility.....even if it's ohhh so slight....that I might be right. Your eternal life is too important to just dismiss the facts and move on with life. Give the evidence a second thought, pm me with questions, read one of my mentioned books, or whatever. If one person does this, it's worth it. Being a Christian isn't some boring life full of rules that hold you down. If you are a true Christian it is a life of joy and assurance in salvation and hope. Sounds cliché I know. I don't know how to explain it other than that.

I lol'd, Pascal's wager, and no evidence/facts have been shown as of yet. And along with that, the author of your book has no degrees, and plagiarizes other people.

You keep saying no evidence will suffice for us, which is a lie. We've explained what we require.

Edit: You really should avoid carm.org in any form of debate or discussion, as they're fundamentally dishonest. In their own statement of faith they refuse to accept any evidence that could contradict the bible.
"The Bible is the Word of God, and that its original manuscripts are free from errors and contradictions. It is the one and only infallible, authoritative, and trustworthy rule for faith and life. (2 Peter. 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16). The Roman Catholic apocrypha is not inspired scripture and is not part of the canon of scripture. The Bible is to be taken as literally as possible except where obviously figurative. Genesis, for example, is literal, and Adam and Eve were actual people."
http://carm.org/statement-faith

[davbrucas]

That clarified it.

The way it's presented in the Bible is not interpreted to mean God because in the phrase "god of this world" the name "god" is printed in lower case. Also, Satan is described in the Bible prior to 2 Corinthians, even as far back as Genesis, as deceiving mankind into considering ourselves equal to God and thus elevating ourselves into being our own gods "of this world".

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[stephen4785]

I was trying to stay out of this discussion, but Stephen, this piece of circular logic doesn't help you. This quote, if it reflects your position, is a dismissal of non-believers. Taken on its own, it means that god wouldn't give non-believers a chance anyway, since his blinding of their hearts would be dependent upon their initial refusal of his divinity. Basically, he wouldn't give them a chance. Corinthians is a bad book to try to establish a logically valid position from, too, since it's a big charismatic bunch of fluff. It's sad and strange that the modern protestant churches are so hung up on it, though, since its basis for validity is and arguments for its invalidity are almost identical to the same for the Book of Mormon. Before you get upset at me rebutting your position, though, remember that I'm not mentioning my own beliefs, or telling you to believe one way or another. I really don't care. I'm just speaking to the logical validity of the position you're taking. Choose better sources.

This is whole different argument than the one I'm on at the moment (Calvinism). I'm not upset. As long as people can debate with respect, that's all I ask. However, being that Corinthians is part of the bible, which I believe to be complete and inerrant, it is an excellent source for us to reference. My point was people can be presented with all the evidence possible but still they won't believe. It's not just an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual one. Makes sense right? If I'm right and there is a God and Satan....Satan wouldn't want people to trust in God so he would do everything in his power to try and convince people we are crazy loons with no valid arguments. I don't hate anyone on here for disagreeing with me. I love debate. But I truly want the people reading to maybe think that there is a possibility.....even if it's ohhh so slight....that I might be right. Your eternal life is too important to just dismiss the facts and move on with life. Give the evidence a second thought, pm me with questions, read one of my mentioned books, or whatever. If one person does this, it's worth it. Being a Christian isn't some boring life full of rules that hold you down. If you are a true Christian it is a life of joy and assurance in salvation and hope. Sounds cliché I know. I don't know how to explain it other than that.

[stephen4785]

What agenda, and what part of the quoted verse doesn't fit whom? These are not sarcastic questions by the way, your response just isn't clear (to me at least).

Here it is in the original Greek text...god is not capitalized, that phrase is never used of the Christian God (god of this world). It is clearly talking about Satan if you look at the chapter in context.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ.
KJV with Strong's
Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest __ the light of the glorious gospel of Christ who is the image of God should shine unto them

As I said, no evidence I provide will ever be sufficient for you. You are the one whose presuppositions are clouding your judgement. If you were to take your hostility towards religion out of it and judge the bible as a historical document, which is what it is, you would see that it is a book like no other in history. The fact that manuscripts dated...using science....from 4000 years ago predicted things that happened in Jesus day and things that have happened in the modern day would at least give a reasonable person pause. All the requirements are met using modern science/archaeology for the manuscripts to be taken as reliable historical fact...same as why we believe Alexander the Great conquered the known world or that the Egyptians had Pharaohs or whatever. But since you do not want to even consider the possibility of it being true, you are looking for any other way to explain it except the facts. The manuscripts are there, written in the right language for the time, naming places and rulers at the time, dated to be the right time. Any other subject and you would accept it as legitimate. Eyewitness accounts of people who saw it happen, no writing denying Jesus miracles from the religious leaders who hated Him (or anyone else from the time for that matter), the fact we can prove his followers were brutally killed for their beliefs, plus not to mention the intangibles...such as personal experiences that let us know Jesus is real. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It cannot prove itself true. It is a very weak place to be intellectually. You have a belief just as I do. Unless it is based completely on blind faith, there must be some reason you hold to it. That would be your evidence. If you are a true atheist...you have none. My position has a lot of evidence. It is not "proof" but evidence. It's like being on a jury trial....you hear the evidence presented and decide what you think is true based on testimony of eyewitnesses etc. Add in some common sense and the lack of evidence from the other side and you make a decision. That would at least bring you to the place of considering God plausible. Here's another good book for you I'm sure you won't read. "Learn the bible in 24 hours" by Chuck Missler. It talks about many of the bible prophecies and when they came true, how God exists outside time/space, how time is curved, The “Big Bang” Models
Steady State Model (Einstein’s Biggest Mistake)
Hesitation Model (Refuted in the 1960s)
Oscillation Model (Refuted by entropy laws, lack of mass)
Inflation Model (Requires antigravity forces never observed)
Seriously, it is a great book if you would just give it a chance. It isn't a hard read either. You owe it to yourself to investigate...after all if I'm wrong I die and am just dead. If I'm right and you die, your in trouble.
I would recommend this book to anyone else interested in knowing the more scientific evidences that point towards a Creator, bible prophecies that were made 3,000 years ago and came true just in the last 70 years...correct to the day (Israel becoming a nation). It also has a chapter showing evidence pointing towards a younger earth (Not 300 billion years old), and did you know that time travels faster or slower depending on your altitude? Of course all these subjects are tied to proving God exists and the bible as being true. It baffles me that there are so many people who thing the bible is just a book written my religious guys to serve some kind of secret purpose to enslave the minds of people. For those of you who really want to explore my evidence further... http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Lea.../9780785264293

[The King]

That clarified it.

The way it's presented in the Bible is not interpreted to mean God because in the phrase "god of this world" the name "god" is printed in lower case. Also, Satan is described in the Bible prior to 2 Corinthians, even as far back as Genesis, as deceiving mankind into considering ourselves equal to God and thus elevating ourselves into being our own gods "of this world".

[davbrucas]

What agenda, and what part of the quoted verse doesn't fit whom? These are not sarcastic questions by the way, your response just isn't clear (to me at least).

Didnt think you were being narcissistic...nor was my comment really directed at you. It just seems that most would interpret that to mean that "god" actually means God and not Satan. But I could be wrong since I am not as interested in the Bible as some of you.