Please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word

[Compassionist]

Christians believe that the Bible is true and is God's Word. Can anyone please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word? Thank you.

[brunumb]

People did not reject God. Adam and Eve (allegedly) disobeyed God, but that is not the same as rejection. If a parent tells their children not to eat a cookie, but the children are convinced to go ahead and do it, have they rejected their parents and therefore deserve being kicked out of their home to die?

They rejected God by not believing Him and instead believed the serpent that spoke what they wanted to hear.

It was simple rule, eat the fruit and start dying. But, I don't think that is a problem, because God has prepared way back to Him for those who learn well and are righteous.

Why should they have believed him anyway? What reason would they have to mistrust another being that God allowed in his idyllic garden? How would they even have any understanding of the idea of a god? How could they understand the concept of death when it did not yet exist? Allowing all the misery, suffering and death that followed as a result of his own negligence is not redeemed by God preparing some ridiculous way back long after these events occurred. A benevolent being would have fixed things tight there and then. You are defending a buffoon god.

[TRANSPONDER]

If everything was good, why was an evil and deceitful serpent allowed in the garden to seduce a pair of ignorant and innocent human? That was not good.

They had brains and could think reasonable. For some reason they decided not to believe God, but instead the serpent they just met. I think the serpent was only exploiting what the woman anyway wanted. And man was just too weak to resist woman's will. I think the serpent was just an excuse for the woman. I think it was not bad to allow the serpent be there. It was stupid from the people not to ask from God first, "what does this mean, we just met this serpent guy who speaks weird stuff".

People did not reject God. Adam and Eve (allegedly) disobeyed God, but that is not the same as rejection. If a parent tells their children not to eat a cookie, but the children are convinced to go ahead and do it, have they rejected their parents and therefore deserve being kicked out of their home to die?

They rejected God by not believing Him and instead believed the serpent that spoke what they wanted to hear.

It was simple rule, eat the fruit and start dying. But, I don't think that is a problem, because God has prepared way back to Him for those who learn well and are righteous.

But it makes no sense, even if God didn't know what was going to happen. If Adam failed the test let him die - as promised and try again with a new Adam. It makes no sense to say 'That didn't work, I'll just have to punish everyone a few thousand years then send someone to be a get out cause from my Law, if only they believe he came alive after being dead".

It makes no sense either as myth or metaphor, but it does make sense as a Jewish creation myth adapted to become a Greek mystery religion. I know that you won't accept that but give me some good reason why I should believe your explanation more.

[1213]

But it makes no sense, even if God didn't know what was going to happen. If Adam failed the test let him die - as promised and try again with a new Adam. It makes no sense to say 'That didn't work, I'll just have to punish everyone a few thousand years then send someone to be a get out cause from my Law, if only they believe he came alive after being dead".

Why do you make nonsensical interpretations of it?

It makes no sense either as myth or metaphor, but it does make sense as a Jewish creation myth adapted to become a Greek mystery religion. I know that you won't accept that but give me some good reason why I should believe your explanation more.

I am not sure what you mean, please tell, what explanation you mean?

[1213]

Why should they have believed him anyway? What reason would they have to mistrust another being that God allowed in his idyllic garden?

So, if two persons speak contradictory things, you don't have any reason to mistrust? Do you believe everything anyone says, even if it is contradictory to what other people say? I don't believe anyone is so blind fool.

How would they even have any understanding of the idea of a god? How could they understand the concept of death when it did not yet exist? ...

Not understanding is not a good excuse. It is incredibly stupid to act without understanding. If they wanted to know or understand something, they could have asked it directly from God.

[1213]

You have no way of knowing if anything you said actually happened. That's just you making stuff up to suit your biases. That said, it was stupid of God to allow the serpent in the garden and negligent of him not to intervene while the serpent seduced the hapless couple. This all eventuated in the destruction of the world. Some afterthought with God cloning himself to get killed and provide redemption is thoroughly ridiculous and unworthy of an allegedly intelligent being. This God is a clown.

When atheists make stuff up about what happened, why should I not do the same? I think it is good to have at least two options. Atheists should not have monopoly on making stuff up.

I disagree with you.

[brunumb]

You have no way of knowing if anything you said actually happened. That's just you making stuff up to suit your biases. That said, it was stupid of God to allow the serpent in the garden and negligent of him not to intervene while the serpent seduced the hapless couple. This all eventuated in the destruction of the world. Some afterthought with God cloning himself to get killed and provide redemption is thoroughly ridiculous and unworthy of an allegedly intelligent being. This God is a clown.

When atheists make stuff up about what happened, why should I not do the same? I think it is good to have at least two options. Atheists should not have monopoly on making stuff up.

I disagree with you.

OK. So at least you admit you are just making stuff up. Now we know how to treat the nonsense you are feeding us.

[TRANSPONDER]

But it makes no sense, even if God didn't know what was going to happen. If Adam failed the test let him die - as promised and try again with a new Adam. It makes no sense to say 'That didn't work, I'll just have to punish everyone a few thousand years then send someone to be a get out cause from my Law, if only they believe he came alive after being dead".

Why do you make nonsensical interpretations of it?

It is not Interpretations, is is not covering up that it is nonsense, but exposing it.

It makes no sense either as myth or metaphor, but it does make sense as a Jewish creation myth adapted to become a Greek mystery religion. I know that you won't accept that but give me some good reason why I should believe your explanation more.

I am not sure what you mean, please tell, what explanation you mean?

This one, for starts: "They rejected God by not believing Him and instead believed the serpent that spoke what they wanted to hear." What is more nonsensical (or fantastical) than a speaking serpent?

You have no way of knowing if anything you said actually happened. That's just you making stuff up to suit your biases. That said, it was stupid of God to allow the serpent in the garden and negligent of him not to intervene while the serpent seduced the hapless couple. This all eventuated in the destruction of the world. Some afterthought with God cloning himself to get killed and provide redemption is thoroughly ridiculous and unworthy of an allegedly intelligent being. This God is a clown.

When atheists make stuff up about what happened, why should I not do the same? I think it is good to have at least two options. Atheists should not have monopoly on making stuff up.

I disagree with you.

And much good may it do you. But the fact is that one would have to look hard to find anything that (on evidence) was more 'Made up' than genesis.

Atheists do not 'make up' stuff, but point out that on evidence and logic Genesis , creation, Eden and Flood makes no sense.

[1213]

You have no way of knowing if anything you said actually happened. That's just you making stuff up to suit your biases. That said, it was stupid of God to allow the serpent in the garden and negligent of him not to intervene while the serpent seduced the hapless couple. This all eventuated in the destruction of the world. Some afterthought with God cloning himself to get killed and provide redemption is thoroughly ridiculous and unworthy of an allegedly intelligent being. This God is a clown.

When atheists make stuff up about what happened, why should I not do the same? I think it is good to have at least two options. Atheists should not have monopoly on making stuff up.

I disagree with you.

OK. So at least you admit you are just making stuff up. Now we know how to treat the nonsense you are feeding us.

Again you make up stuff. I didn't say I make stuff up, I asked "why should I not do the same".

My goal is only to say, the way atheists define things by how they want to see things is not necessary the only way.

[1213]

This one, for starts: "They rejected God by not believing Him and instead believed the serpent that spoke what they wanted to hear." What is more nonsensical (or fantastical) than a speaking serpent?

I don't know enough about the "talking serpent" to say it is not possible.

...
Atheists do not 'make up' stuff, but point out that on evidence and logic Genesis , creation, Eden and Flood makes no sense.

Atheist make stuff up by defining things so that it would seem Bible is not possible or correct.

[TRANSPONDER]

This one, for starts: "They rejected God by not believing Him and instead believed the serpent that spoke what they wanted to hear." What is more nonsensical (or fantastical) than a speaking serpent?

I don't know enough about the "talking serpent" to say it is not possible.

...
Atheists do not 'make up' stuff, but point out that on evidence and logic Genesis , creation, Eden and Flood makes no sense.

Atheist make stuff up by defining things so that it would seem Bible is not possible or correct.

i
I love you man. A quick Google and you would know enough that a serpent couldn't talk Adunaic without a miracle. And 'miracles' are a way of making stuff up - to suit the Bible - believers.

Bible critics however don't "make stuff up by defining things so that it would seem Bible is not possible or correct" They point to what is there and ask 'how does that work?' it is then the Believers who make stuff up like the back to front "I don't know enough about the "talking serpent" to say it is not possible" which put through Theist -English translation app came out - "It happened somehow."

I've come across it before when i have brought up impossibilities - (Quote) "It must have happened somehow, because the Bible says it did."

But like I said I love it as it is NO reason - even a bad one - to swallow Eden, Genesis or the Bible. as a whole. You may see it as a win if you deny everything, maintain Faithclaims and give no explanation. But it isn't about you maintaining denialist faith no matter what - it is about you giving some reason for others to believe your faithclaims. That's why we are here debating.

....


(cue: "Well....you scienceists excuse problems by saying an explanation will turn up one day!" )