Does the Bible call Atheists fools?

[Jester]

It came up in another thread that there was some disagreement over the translation of Psalm 53:1, which (in clasic King James) is:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

It has been presented (by myself), that "There is no God." should be translated as "No, God." My reasons for doing so will be listed in the first response.

The official question, then: What is the most accurate translation of this verse?

[OnceConvinced]

Hum.. the Roman's 1:21-25 sounds like it is talking about a certain type of believer more than the atheists. It sounds like 'when they knew god' and 'vain in their imaginations' sounds more descriptive of those people who label themselves as 'fundamentalists' than any atheist. It sounds like those people who are extremely sure and proud of their faith.

It "sounds" a certain way to you via the voice of Satan. I don't know of any "fundamentalist" Christians supplanting God with images and idols of beasts. You should read the chapter, thereby gaining the context. The Christian boast is in the Lord and His word. You mistake that as a personal boasting of ourselves.

I agree that this chapter is talking about unbelievers, however if you look at the entire chapter carefully it is talking about a specific group of people who committed particular immoralities - particularly gay sex. It also says that these people had been given proof of God's existance.

This chapter cannot be assigned to modern day unbelievers. For one thing, the majority of modern day believers have not clearly seen God's "invisible qualities", nor have they necessarily "known God". They haven't had the benefits of the miraculous events that unbelievers in biblical times got to witness. Furthermore not all unbelievers now are indulging in gay sex, which is what the misogynist Paul was specifically pointing out about the people group he was putting down.

[otseng]

Hum.. the Roman's 1:21-25 sounds like it is talking about a certain type of believer more than the atheists. It sounds like 'when they knew god' and 'vain in their imaginations' sounds more descriptive of those people who label themselves as 'fundamentalists' than any atheist. It sounds like those people who are extremely sure and proud of their faith.

It "sounds" a certain way to you via the voice of Satan. I don't know of any "fundamentalist" Christians supplanting God with images and idols of beasts. You should read the chapter, thereby gaining the context. The Christian boast is in the Lord and His word. You mistake that as a personal boasting of ourselves.

Luke also does not sound like it is addressing thsoe who do not "believe in God. It sounds like it is addressed to the type of believer that is too confident in themselves, rather than in God.

Again, you act upon the "sounds" of Satan.

And no, I don't see how the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus are aligned at all. Paul's message is about the messanger, and for the most part, the teachings attributed to Jesus are how to live.

Again, Satan distorts all those teachings in your own mind. Of course you can't
"see" how Paul amplifies on the teaching of Jesus. I can't hold that against you since you are blinded by the Devil. I can only point it out to you.

Moderator note:

Such comments are considered ad hominem. Simply argue by presenting your Biblical basis rather than attributing contrary ideas to being misled by Satan.

[ken1burton]

The Jewish Messiah had a lot of tasks that had to be accomplished, All the prophecies had to be fulfilled, Many were for the Messiah Himself, Others also had parts that needed to be fulfilled.

It is the Jewish Holy Scriptures or Old Testament which had to be fulfilled to the jot and tittle, It is the Jewish Holy Scriptures which testified of the Jewish Messiah, it is the Jewish Holy Scriptures which show that there is a God, and Jesus the Christ is whom God sent.

Two very important points of those Scriptures need to be noted:

Isaiah 42:19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant?
20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.
21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

That Jesus did not see everything clearly, So the Old Testament prophecies have to be taken as what God established, When what Jesus saw was different then the prophecies.

Second that the Disciples are also blind to what was fulfilled:

Isaiah 29:10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

That Prophecy was fulfilled the day of the Cross, as was all prophecies:

Matthew 26:45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

So God making an end of sins and brining in everlasting righteousness through Jesus is an absolute truth. Which means the repenting, and personal dealing with sin is not Truth, But errors of doctrine caused by Jesus and the Disciples not going by what God said He would do through the Prophets:

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

The Scriptures which is the Jewish Holy Scriptures being fulfilled, has the end of sins, Everlasting righteousness on mankind, The dead having raised with Jesus. And all those out of hell set free.

As far as fools, What can describe people who choose not to see? Is what is called SIMPLE life forms so SIMPLE? Our form of life on earth (not counting what a spirit form of life might need to evolve) is far to complex to have evolved. Death would evolve before the systems needed to survive even got started.

Christians read what God said He would do, Disregard it, and go by what Jesus said after God has said beforehand that He would not see clearly? Repentance is preached by Christianity:

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

I am sure that God does not need to see us repenting after God said that an end of sins would be make, and that everlasting righteousness is brought in. Repentance is calling God a liar. And that sin did not end, and that the Cross was not sufficient, and that we need to deal with it ourselves.

Jesus made a covenant based on belief, But God voided that covenant in Psalms 89:39. Belief does not save us, Repentance does not save us, God’s Love is what has already saved every one of us.

We all as SHEEP have gone astray, Ask any Christian, who are the Good? The Sheep or the goats. Jeremiah 12:1/3 clearly show the Wicked are the Sheep. But with everlasting righteousness brought in, Why would the sheep not enter the Kingdom prepared for them from the Foundation of the World, the Same Foundation of the World which the Lamb is slain from?

Bringing in a New World was also part of what God foretold, Along with the Goats being as is He had not cast them off (Zechariah 10:3/6)

So if God does call the Atheists fools, The Christians can join the group. And the Jewish people can also. God said He would raise up David’s son, and 2-Samuel 12:4 tells which of David’s sons it would be.

But the Child died 7 days after Birth, So the Messiah being sent from God in Heaven, is where dead babies go to. God said He would raise up David’s son after David was dead, Almost a thousand years after David was dead to be exact.

But you have to believe God to believe these things. Believe He spoke through the Prophets. And it those prophecies which form the Spirit of TRUTH, WHEN they are fulfilled. Not until.

1-Kings 19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him , and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

That Lying Spirit is all prophecies are as Lies till fulfilled, Every prophet therefore lies in God’s name, Every prophet is a False Prophet, Till all is fulfilled and made truth the day of the Cross.

God’s word seen like as a fire in Jeremiah 23:29. So all these things being cast into the Lake of fire is all being fulfilled the day of the Cross, All visions are of the day of the Cross, Ezekiel’s vision of a Fire infolding itself. Those not found written in the Lamb’s book of Life are cast into the Lake of fire or covered by God’s words fulfilled the day of the Cross.

They will be written in the Lamb’s book of life the moment they are conceived, Not until.

The Bible does not have to say we are fools, Atheist or Believer, We show we are fools.

Ken

Note about the Miracles the people saw. Most of the people at that time believed in Magic, and even Miracles able to be done by devils or demons, So seeing the Miracles did not convince them of there being One God and whom He is.

Where a Miracle today might have a tendency to be more understood as to what is possible, and what is not possible in this world. There are tricks, and there are illusions, But some things would be very hard to pull off with so many unbelievers watching as well.

I think God desires we come to Him through love, not drawn by answered prayers, or Miracles. Desiring a God who does not make coming to Him beneficial in any physical way, So we are not drawn for the wrong reason.

[daedalus 2.0]

It came up in another thread that there was some disagreement over the translation of Psalm 53:1, which (in clasic King James) is:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

It has been presented (by myself), that "There is no God." should be translated as "No, God." My reasons for doing so will be listed in the first response.

The official question, then: What is the most accurate translation of this verse?

I would encourage you to post the original Hebrew and your analysis. Then back up your claims by Hebrew scholars, not Apologists.

This would take all of two pages of a standard college research paper.

It's only fair that you do the research and present what you find.

I have checked Strong Concordance and the original Hebrew and found that it suggests Polytheism and "There is no gods". That if you translate it "no, god(s)" that you'd have to rewrite the Bible entirely.

You are welcome to disagree - but SHOW YOUR WORK.

[Jester]

It has been presented (by myself), that "There is no God." should be translated as "No, God." My reasons for doing so will be listed in the first response.

The official question, then: What is the most accurate translation of this verse?

I would encourage you to post the original Hebrew and your analysis. Then back up your claims by Hebrew scholars, not Apologists.

Actually, I did post the original Hebrew in the first response, as noted above. My Strong Concordance contains both translations. Moreover, I don't see why apologists would have any reason to differ from the facts at this point, many would see the traditional translation as evidence of divine inspiration.

That if you translate it "no, god(s)" that you'd have to rewrite the Bible entirely.

I don't see how; could you clarify?

[theleftone]

I don't have time to weed through the comments, so I will present my own perspective.

It's reasonable to conclude the fool is a reference to the individual members within a group of evildoers from ancient Israel, not atheists. David lamented through a majority of the psalm about these evildoers. Additionally, the NIV notes on Psalm 14:1 that the Hebrew term translated fool "denotes one who is morally deficient." Thus, it seems context establishes the verse is commenting on the actions of these specific evildoers, and not making a general statement about atheists.

I feel it is unnecessary to debate the translation of specific phrase "There is no God." in the first verse.

[Word_Swordsman]

Well, you know, neither do you. The writings that actually reference what are supposed to be the teachings of Jesus were written decades after he was supposedly crucified. Yes, you are taking it as an authority... but there obviously was disagreement. Yes, Marcion rejects many of the scripture you accepted,
but the ancient church fathers, because of political motivations, rejected many scriptures too. You reject many of the other scriptures that were sought out and destroyed by the early church (post council of Nicea)

Again, you don't understand how Christians were able to sort the false from the true. Those long held as true by the widespread churches remained, while those not bearing the earmarks of divine inspiration were discarded, like the works of Marcion. Care to see a list of Jesus' references to the Tanach, even equating Moses' writings to be the word of God?

As for the record in writing decades after Jesus lived on earth, would you then obey your own rule of biographical writings and discard all written of someone decades after their death? If you do then you provide yet another reason God calls atheists fools.

I am sure he understands and that you are not only in error but have a slighted view of the selection process.
The proto-orthox selected the writings because they had a Pauline tendency and the ones that were picked stayed because they either were being used or had a questionable tradition behind them.

Prove that. I say you are only promoting atheistic propaganda without a shred of proof. The letters accepted by all the councils merely listed the ones in use by the Church before the councils met. Any others presented as candidate documents were either acknowledged as verified by earlier church scholars who didn't reject those early documents, or they refused to list them as pertinent to the first Church usage. You would have to then prove the first Church was in error for not using a document that was not listed.

The so-called letter of Peter is known as a forgery and from Paul's letters we know Peter and others withdrew from Paul.

Again, you must prove such an assertion. I say atheists made that up, and must make such things up. Where is there any ancient declaration of Peter "and others" withdrawing from Paul? I say there is nothing of the sort. You say there is. It is then your responsibility to provide the most ancient known writing, not what some atheist assumes.

Jesus didn't make any references that we know of as all we have is his later followers words about Jesus.

Jesus quoted directly from Isaiah and other prophets such as Moses.

We certainly question the claims made in other ancient writings when it comes to questionable stories and calling someone a fool because they question writings that should be questions is rather self promoting.

Of course atheists, agnostics, Bible skeptics in general "question" the ancient writings. It is in their supposed best interest to discredit the bible, thus perhaps avoiding the worry of a final judgment. However, in reality, it is in your best interest to honestly evaluate the word of God, not what God's enemies have to say.

[daedalus 2.0]

It has been presented (by myself), that "There is no God." should be translated as "No, God." My reasons for doing so will be listed in the first response.

The official question, then: What is the most accurate translation of this verse?

I would encourage you to post the original Hebrew and your analysis. Then back up your claims by Hebrew scholars, not Apologists.

Actually, I did post the original Hebrew in the first response, as noted above. My Strong Concordance contains both translations. Moreover, I don't see why apologists would have any reason to differ from the facts at this point, many would see the traditional translation as evidence of divine inspiration.

That if you translate it "no, god(s)" that you'd have to rewrite the Bible entirely.

I don't see how; could you clarify?

I have already posted why.
Either way, does it matter? There are thousands of verses in the Bible that hinge on interpretation.

It seems to pose a bigger problem for the people who claim there is a set doctrine in the Bible and wisdom from God, rather than the people who determine it is mythology.

"there is no god" or "no, god". How would that change the doctrine that is being taught by a majority of churches? And what does it say about all those pastors claiming to preach the truth?

It seems that settling on doctrine is hardly the non-believers problem. It appears there is a rift in Xianity that needs mending before people start preaching.

[Word_Swordsman]

I have already posted why.
Either way, does it matter? There are thousands of verses in the Bible that hinge on interpretation.

Thousands? Let's see some other than some parables from Jesus where the true meaning was not gained from a literal reading. Which were not interpreted in the Bible? By "thousands" I must conclude you don't understand thousands of scriptures. That isn't God's fault.

[micatala]

Hum.. the Roman's 1:21-25 sounds like it is talking about a certain type of believer more than the atheists. It sounds like 'when they knew god' and 'vain in their imaginations' sounds more descriptive of those people who label themselves as 'fundamentalists' than any atheist. It sounds like those people who are extremely sure and proud of their faith.

It "sounds" a certain way to you via the voice of Satan. I don't know of any "fundamentalist" Christians supplanting God with images and idols of beasts. You should read the chapter, thereby gaining the context. The Christian boast is in the Lord and His word. You mistake that as a personal boasting of ourselves.

I agree that this chapter is talking about unbelievers, however if you look at the entire chapter carefully it is talking about a specific group of people who committed particular immoralities - particularly gay sex. It also says that these people had been given proof of God's existance.

This chapter cannot be assigned to modern day unbelievers. For one thing, the majority of modern day believers have not clearly seen God's "invisible qualities", nor have they necessarily "known God". They haven't had the benefits of the miraculous events that unbelievers in biblical times got to witness. Furthermore not all unbelievers now are indulging in gay sex, which is what the misogynist Paul was specifically pointing out about the people group he was putting down.

I would offer a couple of differing viewpoints here.

First, the group being talked about does seem to be a very specific group, namely they are idolaters in the traditional sense of worshipping man-made articles.

Secondly, the particular sins listed here in chapter 1 are arguably either a result of their conscious rejection of God or are considered sins because of their attitude toward God. Elsewhere in Romans, see chapter 14, Paul allows that a given act X might be a sin for believer A but not for believer B, depending on the believers' consciences and their relationship with God. For example, not keeping a particular day as the sabbath or eating certain kinds of meat could be sinful for some believers, but are not necessarily sins for all believers.