The atheist response to the text of the Bible is based primarily upon the young earth creationist interpretation, which is flawed. If I put myself objectively in the position of the atheist attempting to debunk the Bible I would start with Genesis Chapter 1. The Chapter passed the inspection of this former atheist.
The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.
At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
What this means is that the creation was complete even before the six "days" of creation even began, in fact, later verses in the chapter reveal it was more than likely a long time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
WOW, that image came back later, while I was scooping from my guac dip.
"God isn't really omniscient, omnipotent and certainly not omnipresent."
This statement is a whopper of sorts. Three of the most important qualities for a supernatural being, worthy of worship, to possess are now not necessary or important. What are these limitations you speak of? Is this why he is incapable of healing the sick and feeding the starving masses throughout the world? Now it makes sense.
Yeah...I'm thinking Chuck Norris can probably take him
@Robert - why not? Jacob did, and he was 97! (Gen 22:36)
Oh, so you're an atheist now. Or a God Is Dead theologian.
To "debunk" would surely mean something along the lines of "to remove all the bunk from" right? so that'd involve moving the key piece of furniture out of a dorm, barracks, or what-have-you.
On a more serious note, I have read of this particular interpretation of 1 genesis before... you are basically looking at 1:1 as though it were a simple statement, rather than a summary of what immediately follows. I'll leave it to a professional linguist (which I am not, I don't even play one on TV) to decide how plausible this is; remembering your cockup in another thread re: Firmament I will remain skeptical that you have any notion what you are talking about.
There isn't a period of time between the occurrences of Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, David - the two narratives come from different sources - actually the break point between the two sources comes about a verse late, as those were added much later. This is attested to by all scholars of linguistics who have made a study of the problem and your inspection of these texts is meaningless since you have no education on these matters. My inspection is irrelevant as well, which is why I rely on the inspection of scholars in the relevant fields.
If you are prepared to actually engage the academic studies of these passages and what they reveal then there is a discussion to be had. If, in line with our previous discussions, you throw out all academic study of the text in favour of your Liberty U/Hovind-type sources then we might as well be discussing which colour of faerie wing is more aerodynamic.
I think Patriot U apologists just say the bible is true because it's Gawd's word. Liberty U apologists, in my experience, like to talk a lot about Latin and Greek, making up their own definitions, citing obscure 'theologists', to 'prove' their point (Hovind style, and David's typical pattern). When David here goes back into talking about Hebrew conjugation his rhetoric really gets as pathetic as that of a teenager trying to wing his way through a history paper.
Well, they both have a lot to apologize for --
I think it was tax evasion university. Otherwise known as prison. Why does every whack job seem to be a fellow Floridian.