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.
You STILL don't get how it works, do you, Dave? RE: "so tell us why is there no God" - YOU provide verifiable evidence that there IS a god, then our examination can continue.
Didn't ANY of you guys mention that to him? I'm surprised at you!!
I did in his "Irreligious Bible Student" post, but never got a reply. Still waiting on that evidence.
"If the claim that God exists fails with the first sentence of the Bible, then the rest of the Bible fails because it's all based on the God claim. So yes, there's no point in continuing."
Yet it continues. Over and over and over I see requests for evidence in support of any supernatural (beings). None EVER eventuates - none ever will. Why continue to argue this with people that we all know will do nothing but sidestep the central issue?
When the occasional open-minded questioner wanders in, by all means answer all their questions. But too often people who KNOW the answers (evidence-free answers) come here to teach us. This seems to me to be every bit as futile as using the Bible to refute the Bible.
We do it because they might think about what they were challenged on. For example, when Jessica/Sarah visited and tried a similar strategy to Dave here, she received the same "show us evidence" reply from us. It continued until she actually tried to show us evidence, which was then proven false, and last I remember of her, she was having quite a hard time supporting her belief aside from "it makes me feel warm and fuzzy, but I know there is no proof of it."
In my book, that is a small, but important victory in the larger scale struggle.
Unfortunately, Kir Komrik led her away like a Pied Piper, with his much-touted "deconversion technique," which is regrettable, as it was an opportunity to watch a transition in progress.
Plus she was a sweet kid - it's rare for everyone here to actually like a theist, but everyone did like her. I think the difference was that she actually listened to what we had to say, which is a rare quality in a theist.
RE: "And at this point only the first verse of the first chapter have been considered."
Do you mean the one that reads, "In the beginning, God --" Only four words in, and already we have a problem - back to you, Gallup --
4 words into this examination and we have our conclusion. We've settled it. Now to the question of 42. Everyone go home. Turn the radio station and send your money elsewhere. Poor Sam Harris. What in the hell is he going to do now?
I think you miss the point Archy is making. Genesis 1:1 starts with a premise that there is god, before we go into the semantics of Hebrew or whatever language you want to show us you know, settle the question first of whether a god exists then the rest should be easy. That is the crux of the matter and that is what Gallup is asking, now can you provide evidence that a god, more so the Gen 1:1 exists?
I understand the point Archy and Gallup are making. Is it possible my own point isn't being addressed or understood? I along with everyone else here have an opinion on the existence of God. The OP attempts to reexamine the evidence presented by the text itself.
Lets say scientist received some transmission from somewhere out in space claiming to originate from some extremely advanced beings. Should we listen to the skeptics who say those beings don't exist or proceed objectively?
I guess that is up to the individual, but do you see my point.
I'd say it was the responsibility of that scientist to present evidence that he did in fact receive a transmission, that it was indeed from "somewhere out in space," and that it originated from advanced beings, which would necessitate evidence that such beings exist.
You have maintained the said god in gen 1:1 exists, now this is the deal before we go into bible exegesis, show me the evidence this god exists.
I here when the bible was first written, if there is a first date, they didn't have vowels, spacing and so on, is this true? How does one make sense of something like that and then you have the audacity to tell us the god in question so desired to reveal something to us mortals. I don't buy it, I will not buy it, unless that god comes himself if he exists to show me what he meant
Gallup's Mirror created a period at the end of the sentence. Gallup's Mirror saw that it was good. Amen.