Kay 17, i wonder why you would make the stetement below

"LOL!! Supernatural is an absurd concept. It implies that an entity can behave beyond its own character/self, it implies that reality lacks consistency. Science, the concept of knowledge are null as a result.The real question is "is it within the nature of man to resurrect from the dead as he speaks and walks?""

You asked wether it is in the nature of man to behave beyond its own character. How much do you know about the nature of man? I put it to you that the real nature of man is incorruptible and not supposed to die until sin came in through adam (man was initially designed to live forever). However scientifically i know you are aware that it is in the nature of man to self-heal, that is why some can get healed of minor malaria, cough etc over time without using drugs by the action of the body's natural defence system (antibodies/antigens). The purpose of drugs most times is to activate/energise these antigens/antibodies to counter the intruding parasites.another self-healing mechanism of the body can be observed in the formation of clots on wounds to prevent further bleeding.
However even though the body has a natural healing process, do you think the body unaided can self-heal from typhoid, cancer, aids without use of drugs? The answer is YES, but the fact is that the rate at which these diseases destroy the body is greater than the rate at which the body's natural defense mechanism can withstand, hence you may be dead b/4 the body is able to self heal and that is why drugs are used to help the body's existing defence dept.

This illustration serves to show that an external element might atimes be necessary to help the body activate a natural propensity. And like i showed earlier man was initially created to live forever, but lost this through sin, however through an external drug (supernatural force/ miracle) a man that looses his life can be reactivated back to life.

Hi Kay 17, intensity of work has kept me away from nairaland for a while that is why i have not been able to respond to your latest post. But now i'm a bit free.

Based on your responses to my post i make the following observations
1. you are aware that scientists have not fully grasped the origin of the singularity that expanded/exploded during the big-bang
2. That the singularity that expanded/exploded during the big-bang is composed of infinitely dense particles which has not been understood where they came from.
3. According to newtonian physics, a body will continue in its state of rest or uniform motion on a straight line except an external force acts on it. Hence the singularity (a point of infinitely dense particle) should remain like that eternally without an external influence. Hence for the singularity to beging to expand/explode, an external influence must have acted on it. what is this external influence?
4. There is indeed a begining of all things and also a force/personality which brought about the existence of the universe hence the atheist concept of infinite cause "no first cause" is itself not supported by science (point-3 above)

i have tried to explain to you that the creation story in Gen 1 is not the begining but can be viewed as a renewal of the face of the earth (there is an unstated period of time btw gen1:1 and gen1:3 which could be a long a 15billion years as proposed by science).Additionally, in the absence of contrary evidence from you, the creation of the earth gen1:3 did not take a literal 6 earth days but rather 6 heavenly days which is equivalent to about 1000 earth years (2Pet3:3). Hence i put it to you that this bible facts don't contradict the findings of science.

Hence since i have been able to severally explain how bible facts are not inconsistent with certain scientific observations (see chain of Q/A) except you raise new ones, and how science comes to establish at last what the bible has alluded to at first, i find it therefore in areas of conflict between bible and science to take sides with the bible since science is still growing and may in the futur come up to confirm what the bible already affirms.

Hence the bible says in the begining God created....., but science says in the begining the singularity expanded/exploded...take note like i pointed earlier that the singularity which already existed in a form cannot change form without an external influence( newtonian physics) hence i think science itself is coming up gradulally to the conclusion that in the begining a force/person initiated the expansion/explosion of ....Science will likely one day scientifically confirm the existence of God and at that point people like you would belief but may be too late.

Thank you Kay17 for your patience and effort to articulate yourself this time. But though vast in the bible i can claim to be able to easily reference all verses under dispute. Can you remake your post indicating the reference of these statements, "The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof...", "According to the psalmist, snails melt.." so that i can respond to them also. I have noticed that many atheists don't even know where the passages and stories they claim are contentious can be found in scriptures, they only carry those arguments as tools borrowed from their mentors to harrass the theist about their belief.Some of these statements unfortunately are maliciously taken out of context in order to disparage the theist belief eg is the passage from Daniel4:11 that i dealt with yersterday refering to the "ends of the earth"

Now to some of the stories that im farmiliar with and know where they are i'll try to help you undestand

1. "In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old...." Yes science tells us that the universe is btw 15- 20 billion years from the big-bang. But so interesting is my personal findings that scientists are still bothered about what triggered the big-bang. The big-bang was an explosion of an infinitely dense particle of matter leading to the creation and expansion of the planets stars etc. Scientist are yet to explain where these material that exploded during the big-bang came from or for how long it has been existing before the appropriate conditions for the big-bang to occur was achieved. Hence it seems to me that scientists agree that the universe came to be by the aid (disintegration/ expansion) of something which was not part of the universe itself. Agreed?

Now going to the bible account, i explained in my very first post the concept of 6 days, viz - à - viz 2Pet3:3, (please refer to that argument) the writer MAY not necessarily mean 6 earth-days considering for example that 1 pluto day is about 350 earth-years, if for the meantime we assume heaven is a planet in our galaxy much further away from pluto, then it is not impossible to achieve a scenario where 1 heaven-day is equal to 1000+ earth-years. Unless you can proof to me that the writer of Genesis definitely means 6 earth-days, you would be turning logic on its head to say the bible claims the earth was made in 6 earth days. If you look at Gen 1 from the understanding of 2Pet3:3, your claim that the bible said the earth was made in 6 earth days seems faulty.

Furthermore, Genesis is generally refered to as the book of the beginning, but then, the begining of what? It is not necessarily the begining of the universe, but perhaps the begining of a new order, perhaps a renewal or refurbishment of the face of the earth. Take note that Gen1:1 says "in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. (verse2) the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the surface of the deep...and the spirit of god was hovering upon the waters" Between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 is a period/space of time long/short that the bible never told us about because he would not have created the heavens and the earth and left it as formless and void. some events are likely to have happened to render the initial creation formless and void. Also take note that according to the bible, WATER was not one of the things newly created, water already existed Gen1:3"...and the spirit of god was hovering upon the waters. And god said let there be..." This is further prove that the original creation of the universe happened long ago before the creation account described in Gen1:3-26. The space of time between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 may be what science is helping us today to know, hence Gen1 did not in any way say that it is impossible for the earth to be 20billion years old. You see my friend how proper understanding can change your perception, that is why i don't downplay the bible despite my vasteness in science because i am aware of the applications and limitations of each tool.

2. "Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved..." see brother you have the perception of instantaneous creation of man based on your interpretation of 6 earth-day creation in which man was made on the sixth day. But if you for example give my exposition a place in your mind for a moment that perharp the writer was using 6 heaven-days (equivalent to 6000 earth years as discussed earlier), that would mean that the creation account was not instantaneous at all. Also if you study Gen1 very well, the order of creation day-after day was vegetation then, water creatures, then birds, then land creatures and lastly man. Does this sequence not fit into a creation era that spans at least 6000 years and begins with the simple to the complex?
Hence you are right, humans were not created instantaneously, the bible didn't say so, man was like the latter part of a creation era spanning at least 6000years which began with creation of simple life forms gradually into the creation of more complex life forms.
Regarding your assertion that man was not made from dust and breath... that is what you need to proof to me. Take note that evolution is a theory just like gravity. A theory is not necessarily the truth, rather it is an acceptable explanation to a phenomenon based on observation/experimentation. I am sure that you are aware that newton's theory of gravity is not as useful in space mechanics as eistein's theory of relativity, nonetheless we still use newtonian mechanics with motion on earth because its explanations work here. So then what if the theory of evolution truly explains certain transitions but not all transitions( just the same way newton gravity fails when you start to study the mechanics of planetary bodies especially the singularity/black-hole). I put it to you to give me infallible proofs beyond loud assertions that man was not made from dust and breath.

3. "A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha." That is supernatural and i believe in it, or were you there in the past to witness it did not happen. Your duty now is to proof to me that the account did not happen. The fact you don't believe in something doesn't make it false, you have to proof it to be false in order to have audience.

4. "God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole." Also supernatural, can you proof it never happened?

5. "Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats Reproduce while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats" This account is in Gen30:30-40, but my brother did you take the pains to read just a bit further down Gen31:6-12, you will realize his use of spotted rod was merely symbolic, what happened was that god altered the mating pattern of the animals such that it was mostly the strong spotted males that mated with the females. And then scintifically, spotted males mate with females, most likely results are spotted baby goats. You see yourself now, most times what you atheist call absurdities are realities over which you need enlightenement. So why not ask questions more rather than outrightly condemn.

Good morning gentlemen (Martian, Kay17, ea7, jack65)
Your latest responses fell short of my opinion about you....perhaps i overated your capacity to truly defend your belief. Can i suggest something please, forget for now the fallacies of my claims and try to entice me into your faith by its beauty. I said so earlier that i have noticed most atheist on nairaland have no sound means of convincing a non believer of the correctness of their belief, rather what they do is what for the theist to painfully make a sound write up line upon line and off the atheist go picking up others claims and finding fault with it. Particularrly ea7 it was less disappointing for me when you said you are a young chap of 16, your post was just a waste of your time because you practically said nothing using so many words.

I'll prefer if you have no intelligent issues to raise to just read and follow the evolution of the discussions rather than fuss unecessarily.

The few things i've struggled to pick out of your posts are as follows

1. "...The bible is just a book of fables writen thousands of years by primitive men. This is very easy to see when you look at the contradictions and absurdities in the bible...." by Jack65 Jack, don't you think this is an unsubstantiated claim, i am not saying that you are wrong, but i mean give me the examples of what you call contradictions and absurdities.I'll be glad to listen to you, please make effort atheists not just to make claims but to also cite examples clearly so that we can resolve where the problem is coming from. What you are calling a contradictions may just be a limitation of your imagination and what you call absurdities may be linked to your personal analytic abilities. If you state these examples clearly i may be able to help you..just if i can. I rate you guys high in discussion and expect you should know that "claims posited without proofs will just as easily be de-posited without proofs" and that leaves us both in our darkness.

2. "...Comparing science to the bible is ridiculous just like..." by Jack65. Why is it ridiculous to compare the bible to science, science is a body of knowledge with accompanying textbooks for information, the bible is also a textbook of information comprising a body of knowledge. The bible is authored by men, while science texts are also authored by men. Tell me how i have erred in logic to compare both please.

3. "Like you rightly stated earlier, it takes more intelligence, common sense and of course more resarch to become an atheist" by Jack65 Jack i stand by that affirmation and even showed you why i believe that to be an atheist takes more of personal decision than parental direction in my very first post. However what i did not say is that i belief you are right by the conclusions you derive from your research. Yes you have personally researched, but just maybe you have been to harsh, hasty or just outrightly unrealistic by the conclusions you affirmed by your sound research. For example you are yet to show/tell me what information you have based on your science research that i am not aware of, nonetheless even with my awareness of those information i still share a conclusion not identical to yours. So yes i admit you have done a more diligent and inteligent research, but no i didn't say i agree with the conclusions your affirm.

4. "The authors of the bible were prisoners of their time, they couldn't have known what was beyond them and their methods..." by Kay17 This is a claim without proof
5. "The bible is filled with tales of the impossible and supernatural..." by Kay17 This is a claim without proof. Highlight one of those tales and let us talk about it.

6."Can knowledge be acquired via Faith?? My answer is NO" by Kay17 Kay17 this is the only sensible(no slight intended) statement in your post. But i am surprised you asked a question and you also answered it yourself, you would have shown yourself a bit more inteligent by simply asking me the question "Can knowledge be acquired via Faith?? and then we could have engaged ourselves in answering that. Nonetheless i will give you my own answer to the question. Most search/experimentation are based on a preconceived idea that the experimenter sets out to validate or invalidate. There is the popular saying of Thomas edison trying more than 1000 times to make the light bulb, what kept him going during his initial failures was his preconceived notion (faith) that what he wanted to achieve was possible. And in the process he aquired the knowledge not only of how to make electric bulbs but also of how not to try and make it. Hence you see how faith (a preconceived notion) can help your search and aquisition of knowledge? And many times too doubt can motivate people to search and aquire knowledge, but do you realize that doubt in an hypothesis is equivalent to faith/believe in the opposite of the hypothesis (eg doubt of ability of heavy flying man made objects is equivalent to faith/believe that heavy man made objects can can, that belive led the wright brothers in search and aquisition of knowledge of making airplanes which has tremendously improved since their time). No scientist goes into the lab experimenting without an objective (faith, pre-conceived notion), hence the basis for the search and development of knowledge is faith in something. However i admit there are FEW ocassions where people stumble unexpectedly on ideas they were not searching for (eg Newton and the concept of gravity, Archimedes and the theory of floatation), this is called happenstance in english and accounts for a minority of discoveries and evn in such cases they were not motivated by faith and neither by doubt.

7. "I got a question.Why don't you believe in the Wicca Book of Shadows?" by Martian As much as i respected you martian, i'm disappointed this is the only comment i consider a bit reasonable in your post. Atheists in the house, please rather than waste your time and that of the numerous guests on nairaland, if you don't have real issues to raise just read and learn, just follow the thread, its not compulsory you much show your ignorance. "Be silent and thought as wise than speak out and remove all doubts" Anyway martian can you please introduce me to this book of shadows, i ve never heard about it, why can't i belief in it if i know about it , evaluate it and find it worthy

8. ea7, please no slight intended, nothing you said requires response,take my advice for next time "Be silent and thought as wise than speak out and remove all doubts"

I invite you afresh to the proposal i earlier made

1. I know you belief what science says, just like me also ( a scientist by training), but what reasons do you have not to also belief what the bible says (forget about the concept of god for the main time, because neither the theist also have seen god, they rely on the bible to postulate about him/it).

2. Just the way we both share strong belief in science, i wonder why you choose not to belief in bible accounts like me also? Give reasons pls

3. Can you also please give evidences for your reasons in 2 above

4. I am convinced you are quite learned in the basis of your convictions, but just maybe there are certain misunderstandings we can help each other out of. Let us compare notes and see how we can help update each other. I am persuaded that believing in science and believing in bible are not mutually exclusive events, one can uphold both knowing fully well the applications and limitations of each

Hi gentlemen ( Martian,Logic Mind and ea7),
I am quite excited to see you guys visit this tread, i have followed your contributions closely on various other threads and reckon you guys (no spite intended,especially martian) as quite seasoned and schooled in your chosen belief. But above all i am all the more delighted that you seem to reason along with my lines of observation without objection. I give myself a pat on the back!!!

Now taking the discussion further, a serious problem among theist (eg christians) is lack of ability to communicate their belief/faith effectively to a non-believer, but may be it is not as much a problem of skill as it is of knowledge- because you cannot communicate clearly what you don't understand deeply.

I am open minded and will never put myself up to defend the bible, but rather since i was not there when it was written (neither were you) i like to look at all the possible variations of sound and logical interpretations that the written words can permit. If i find one that helps my belief then i uphold it as the possible intention of the writer except you the atheist can proof to me definitively why my choice of sound and logical interpretation is not the true intention of the writer.

With this position of mine clearly clarified, and with the observation that you have tacitly admitted my position as not been foolish to hold unto the bible rather than science in matters of conflicting conclusions, then i will invite you to let's take this discussion to a higher level.

1. I know you belief what science says, just like me also ( a scientist by training), but what reasons do you have not to also belief what the bible says (forget about the concept of god for the main time, because neither the theist also have seen god, they rely on the bible to postulate about him/it).

2. Just the way we both share strong belief in science, i wonder why you choose not to belief in bible accounts like me also? Give reasons pls

3. Can you also please give evidences for your reasons in 2 above

4. I am convinced you are quite learned in the basis of your convictions, but just maybe there are certain misunderstandings we can help each other out of. Let us compare notes and see how we can help update each other. I am persuaded that believing in science and believing in bible are not mutually exclusive events, one can uphold both knowing fully well the applications and limitations of each

Hi dekung,
i must salut you for the maturity of your response, i also checked out the links you posted and found them quite educative. The website did a good job of picking every line of scripture investigated as literally as he could. Like Reuben Abati once said, if i was speaking to a rowdy audience and say gentlemen please lend me your ears, will you claim i'm asking them to cut of their ears and give to me? I'm sure you wouldn't

That is why in matters of law, we usually have the laws and then explanatory documents that details the spirit of the law ie what the lawmakers had in mind in framing the law and wording it as done.

Agreed it will not be proper for me to take the position of an advocate and trying to reconstruct the mind of the writers of the bible, but then you too should not be found forcing words into their mouths and making them say what they didn't intend to say. We are both speculative about what is meant by what is written and hence you can't put down my speculations without proof that you're sure that is not what they meant.Remember -"what is posited without proof can also be de-posited without proof"

Regarding Gen 1:1, i checked in KJV and found you are right, KJV uses HEAVEN and not HEAVENS. I rarely consult the KJV because of its rather unfamiliar language (thou hath, seeth, doeth etc, i had based my observation on KJV, NKJV (new KJV), TLB, NASB) which contains more conventional language usage.

Ragarding you point that the bible was wrong calling the earth a circle instead of a sphere (Isa 40:22), i never said myself that the bible was right in that, i simply said that based on the vocabulary available at that time just may be that was the closest means of expressing the concept the writer had in mind. Me and you know that the basic shapes are circle, triangle, rectangle, it is when you go in 3D that they birth sphere, cone, cuboid respectively. Most school age children learn the basic shapes much earlier and their 3D equivalents much later. You must give credit to the writer for not saying triangle or rectangle, circle already connotes curviness contrary to flatness.

On one of your websites posted, the writer picks up the scripture in Dan4:11 "the tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky, it was visible to the ends of the earth" and literally runs away claiming the bible authour was a flat-earther (ie beliefs in a flat earth). The phrase "ends of the earth" does not imply an abrupt end or lack of continuity of space, it rather means an extrimity of location or a distant land. Take note that the passage did not read "end of the earth" rather it reads "ends(plural) of the earth", we both know beyond semantics that this is not an assertion but rather an expression meaning extremity, distant etc. Don't force the writer to say what he didn't intend by interpreting "ends of the earth" as the place where the land (earth) ends

Furtherstill, taking a look at the first part of this same Dan40:22 "the tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky,...." would you also run away with the interpretation that the writer suggests that a plat (tree) can grow and literally touch the sky? that would be absurd. Contextually Dan40 was a dream regarding Nebuchadnezzar who was a pround king that set himself almost in the place of God. Hence "..a tree with its top touching the sky" would contextually mean someone who has set himself high above all peoples, rather than an actual tree as tall as the sky. Do you understand?

Please don't come back to say i'm only trying to reconstruct the mind of the writer of daniel because you too would be guilty of this same offence, trying to force him to say what you like to belief, or like i said in the opening sentence, if i was speaking to a rowdy audience and say gentlemen please lend me your ears, will you claim i'm asking them to cut of their ears and give to me?

Hence going back to my real issues
1. i admit it takes more rational and conscious self decision to be atheist than to be theist

2. Whether i am atheist or theist i think is secondary at this point, we may simply like to focus on the observations raised

3. This observations include that science never claims to be all knowing, because its conclusions evolve and things which were false yersterday are now true today and who knows may become false again tomorrow( eg pluto: a planet once, not a planet anymore; atom smallest indivisible part of matter while i was in secondary school, but today not anymore, there are now photons which are smaller than atoms etc)

4.Theists (eg christians) claim that their source (bible) is infallible

5. Coincidentally a few things which this alleged infallible source claims long ago later gets affirmed by science (re-refer to my original posts for the examples)

6. Why do you think therefore in any subject where bible and science conflicts, that i would be wrong to follow the bible? Following science, tomorrow it may come and proclaim another conclusion based on new findings.

Please forget the issue of first cause for now, we will get to that later, that is not my point yet, my point is to help us explore which is a more credible source of evidence in subjects where bible and science have conflicting conclusions: the theist bible or the atheist science considering points 3-5 above

thehomer the staunch atheist, one of the big problems i have observed with the atheist community on nairaland is that they rarely make a strong case from first principles for their convictions, they are most times simply waiting for a theist to make a submission and off they go taking the points one-after the other and raising questions about it.

Rather than flagging my submission one-after the other i will like you to first understand me fully ( i re-summarize my main points below) and then respond to me in your own words rather than flagging and faulting mine)

1. i admit it takes more rational and conscious self decision to be atheist than to be theist

2. Whether i am atheist or theist i think is secondary at this point, we may simply like to focus on the observations raised

3. This observations include that science never claims to be all knowing, because its conclusions evolve and things which were false yersterday are now true today and who knows may become false again tomorrow( eg pluto: a planet once, not a planet anymore; atom smallest indivisible part of matter while i was in secondary school, but today not anymore, there are now photons which are smaller than atoms etc)

4.Theists (eg christians) claim that their source (bible) is infallible

5. Coincidentally a few things which this alleged infallible source claims long ago later gets affirmed by science (re-refer to my original posts for the examples)

6. Why do you think therefore in any subject where bible and science conflicts, that i would be wrong to follow the bible? Following science, tomorrow it may come and proclaim another conclusion based on new findings.

Please forget the issue of first cause for now, we will get to that later, that is not my point yet, my point is to help us explore which is a more credible source of evidence in subjects where bible and science have conflicting conclusions: the theist bible or the atheist science considering points 3-5 above

Learned gentlemen and ladies, this debate about a first cause who was not himself/itself caused is a cul-de-sac because no-one will change his mind against his will, and to make a man change his mind requires more than reason because he can choose to discountenance whatever reasons you advance.
Fisrtly let me admit that it takes a more conscious effort to be an atheist than to be a theist. Most times we become theist not by choice but by family, peers etc and then latter accumulate reasons to defend and justify our belief while considering evidences against our belief as exceptions to the rule. For this reason a child born in a muslim family will belief in God as defined by Quaran, so a child born in a Christian family will belief first in the creeds of Christianity and as he grows seeks only evidences that advance his belief and rejecting evidences to the contrary as aberration. Hence for most theism, the belief comes first and then the justifications.
However for the atheist, considering the relatively small percentage of people in this category, it is not unsafe to assume most mere born into some theist family but over time due to education or self determination/decision then personally chose to change belief from theism to atheism… most times against odds. For this reason you realize most atheists are vast in science “space-time continuum concept, evolution etc). Hence being an atheist is most times a product of self decision based on personal evaluation of available evidences. That is the justifications come before the belief.
Hence I can make a first conclusion by saying atheists are more rational than theists.
But the greatest conflict comes from the sources of argument, the theist (Christian for example)) use the bible, while the atheists use observation, logic and science.
On one hand the atheist don’t say that bible claims are false (I suppose), they rather posit that those claims could be rather explained without introduction of a god element eg creation of life, creation of night and day, with sun to rule the day and moon to rule the night, rainbow, seasons etc.
And on the other hand, we know that science is evolutionary, certain things we know today were unknown before and perhaps certain things we don’t know today may become clear later. So the theist say, due to this nature of the atheists’ tool of argument (science), it may not be the final authority of what is true, since its conclusions evolve with new information over time.
Going a little further, the development of most of the theist’s argument (big-bang, black-hole, relativity, Darwinian evolution, space and planetary bodies etc ) are recent within the last 300-350 years whereas the bible patches and commentary compiled in today’s bible scientifically dates back 1700(new testament) – 3000 (old testament) years
I find it a bit curious that many things the aged book (bible) already implied/said are been corroborated by the young science. I give a few examples:

(1) Gen 1:1 the bible says “in the beginning god created the heaven(s) and the earth” if you check any translation of the bible you will see the pluralisation of the word HEAVENS. The writer of genesis must be implying here other earth-like domains which in the available vocabulary of the time he referred to as the heaven(s). I think if the word planet already existed at that time it would have read “in the beginning god created the planets and earth”

(2) Isaiah 40:22 “He (god) sits enthroned upon the circle of the earth” this already gives the notion of a circular/spherical earth which science refuted until 1861 when Ferdinand Margellan circumnavigated the earth and showed that the earth was not flat as supposed by science but really spherical like the bible already implied.

(3) 2 Pet 3:3 “But do not forget …with the lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” Do you realize it must have taken great faith and writing out of sheer inspiration to make a claim like above 1700 years ago. This statement suggests that the writer knows that the length of a day is a function of the planetary body to which you belong. For example 1 year in Pluto (time to rotate round the sun) is apprx 350 earth-years and 1 day in Venus is approx 245 earth-days. So then just imagine that Heaven (gods supposed abode) is one of the far away planets in our galaxy, it would not be impossible to have a planetary body whose 1 year is equivalent to 1000+ earth-years (this is also directly applicable to days and night based on the size of the planet and its speed of rotation about its axis). Therefore in the events of genesis where the bible talks of god creating the earth in 7days, we just can’t tell whose day reference the writer implies- earth day or heaven day. But beyond all the science jargons, my point is , the bible seems to already imply or refer to concepts which science later grows-up to relate with.

(4) I have done a lot of reading on Black-holes “it is formed by dead exploding stars,such stars collapse into an infinitely dense mater called singularity. The black-hole has infitely large gravity and nothing that enters it can ever escape even light. It is for this reason they have been difficult to study by science since light rays hitting the singularity never escapes for us to perceive with the telescope The black-hole hence is a scientific place of darkness from which nothing that enters can escape. This for me seems to fit the biblical concept of hell, (a bottomless pit (notice the similarity black-hole, dark bottomless-pit)


Hence I will conclude with the following observations,
(i) Based on the afore mentioned points, I think that science is not a sufficient bases as of today to tell us that god does not exist, since we have shown that the knowledge of science grows and improves with time. Hence although science doesn’t see the need for the existence of god today, it may arrive there tomorrow.
(ii) The bible has been shown by the fore examples to speak ahead of time of events which science comes behind to confirm, hence we may want to intuitively uphold what we think the bible says whenever it is conflicting with science in the hope that someday science will arrive at same position as the bible holds.
(iii) Then since the bible says that god exists, it is safe to belief it, hoping one day science will also affirm it.

Learned gentlemen and ladies, this debate about a first cause who was not himself/itself caused is a cul-de-sac because no-one will change his mind against his will, and to make a man change his mind requires more than reason because he can choose to discountenance whatever reasons you advance.
Fisrtly let me admit that it takes a more conscious effort to be an atheist than to be a theist. Most times we become theist not by choice but by family, peers etc and then latter accumulate reasons to defend and justify our belief while considering evidences against our belief as exceptions to the rule. For this reason a child born in a muslim family will belief in God as defined by Quaran, so a child born in a Christian family will belief first in the creeds of Christianity and as he grows seeks only evidences that advance his belief and rejecting evidences to the contrary as aberration. Hence for most theism, the belief comes first and then the justifications.
However for the atheist, considering the relatively small percentage of people in this category, it is not unsafe to assume most mere born into some theist family but over time due to education or self determination/decision then personally chose to change belief from theism to atheism… most times against odds. For this reason you realize most atheists are vast in science “space-time continuum concept, evolution etc). Hence being an atheist is most times a product of self decision based on personal evaluation of available evidences. That is the justifications come before the belief.
Hence I can make a first conclusion by saying atheists are more rational than theists.
But the greatest conflict comes from the sources of argument, the theist (Christian for example)) use the bible, while the atheists use observation, logic and science.
On one hand the atheist don’t say that bible claims are false (I suppose), they rather posit that those claims could be rather explained without introduction of a god element eg creation of life, creation of night and day, with sun to rule the day and moon to rule the night, rainbow, seasons etc.
And on the other hand, we know that science is evolutionary, certain things we know today were unknown before and perhaps certain things we don’t know today may become clear later. So the theist say, due to this nature of the atheists’ tool of argument (science), it may not be the final authority of what is true, since its conclusions evolve with new information over time.
Going a little further, the development of most of the theist’s argument (big-bang, black-hole, relativity, Darwinian evolution, space and planetary bodies etc ) are recent within the last 300-350 years whereas the bible patches and commentary compiled in today’s bible scientifically dates back 1700(new testament) – 3000 (old testament) years
I find it a bit curious that many things the aged book (bible) already implied/said are been corroborated by the young science. I give a few examples:

(1) Gen 1:1 the bible says “in the beginning god created the heaven(s) and the earth” if you check any translation of the bible you will see the pluralisation of the word HEAVENS. The writer of genesis must be implying here other earth-like domains which in the available vocabulary of the time he referred to as the heaven(s). I think if the word planet already existed at that time it would have read “in the beginning god created the planets and earth”

(2) Isaiah 40:22 “He (god) sits enthroned upon the circle of the earth” this already gives the notion of a circular/spherical earth which science refuted until 1861 when Ferdinand Margellan circumnavigated the earth and showed that the earth was not flat as supposed by science but really spherical like the bible already implied.

(3) 2 Pet 3:3 “But do not forget …with the lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” Do you realize it must have taken great faith and writing out of sheer inspiration to make a claim like above 1700 years ago. This statement suggests that the writer knows that the length of a day is a function of the planetary body to which you belong. For example 1 year in Pluto (time to rotate round the sun) is apprx 350 earth-years and 1 day in Venus is approx 245 earth-days. So then just imagine that Heaven (gods supposed abode) is one of the far away planets in our galaxy, it would not be impossible to have a planetary body whose 1 year is equivalent to 1000+ earth-years (this is also directly applicable to days and night based on the size of the planet and its speed of rotation about its axis). Therefore in the events of genesis where the bible talks of god creating the earth in 7days, we just can’t tell whose day reference the writer implies- earth day or heaven day. But beyond all the science jargons, my point is , the bible seems to already imply or refer to concepts which science later grows-up to relate with.

(4) I have done a lot of reading on Black-holes “it is formed by dead exploding stars,such stars collapse into an infinitely dense mater called singularity. The black-hole has infitely large gravity and nothing that enters it can ever escape even light. It is for this reason they have been difficult to study by science since light rays hitting the singularity never escapes for us to perceive with the telescope The black-hole hence is a scientific place of darkness from which nothing that enters can escape. This for me seems to fit the biblical concept of hell, (a bottomless pit (notice the similarity black-hole, dark bottomless-pit)


Hence I will conclude with the following observations,
(i) Based on the afore mentioned points, I think that science is not a sufficient bases as of today to tell us that god does not exist, since we have shown that the knowledge of science grows and improves with time. Hence although science doesn’t see the need for the existence of god today, it may arrive there tomorrow.
(ii) The bible has been shown by the fore examples to speak ahead of time of events which science comes behind to confirm, hence we may want to intuitively uphold what we think the bible says whenever it is conflicting with science in the hope that someday science will arrive at same position as the bible holds.
(iii) Then since the bible says that god exists, it is safe to belief it, hoping one day science will also affirm it.

Pastor AIO, i want to assume you are really a church pastor as your username suggest, you evaded the question asked using a weak analogy.
A BRIBE is a gift given to induce (either for good or bad), it is not something you grab by yourself. Hence you cannot compare bribe receiving with corruptly personally dipping your hands into public purse.

See this question as one sincerely asked and let us stay with the issue and bring out Bible verses to enlighten each other.

The question still remains then that 'Does the Bible say it is wrong to give/take bribe

Hello guys, i had a heated debate with some friends on what does bribe mean and is it wrong to give or take it. I wish to bring it to this forum of elites in order to find reasons to believe that giving/taking bribe is wrong ( I am currently personally convinced even the Bible does not condemn the act)

Prov 17:8
"A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he succeeds". (NIV)

Prov 21:14
"A gift given in secret soothes anger, and a bribe concealed in the cloak pacifies great wrath". (NIV)

My argument is that it is not a bribe that is wrong in itself, it is the purpose for which you give or take it that may be wrong. A bribe in its simplest definition can be seen as a gift or favour rendered in order to influence another.

When a hubby buys his wife gifts on his way from work in expectation of a superb night work-out...that is a bribe

When you go to eat at a restaurant and you leave your change with the waiter, that is a bribe to ensure you don't wait long before being served the next time you show-up

If you drop something regularly for the gateman and secretary of a major client in order to ensure prompt attention during your appointments, that is a bribe. But who says that is a bad practise, hear what the scripture says
Prov 18:16
"A gift opens the way for the giver and ushers him into the presence of the great". (NIV)

If you have a cherished relationship that is threatened, and you buy a precious gift for the other party...that is a bribe, but who says this is bad
Prov 21:14
"A gift given in secret soothes anger, and a bribe concealed in the cloak pacifies great wrath." (NIV)


However the Bible clearly states that it is wrong to receive or take Bribe in order to do wrong or pervert justice
Ps 15:5
"who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken". (NIV)


Hence gentlemen and ladies what is your take about my reasoning, are there other scriptures i am not putting into consideration?



[b]Hello guys, i had a heated debate with some friends on what does bribe mean and is it wrong to give or take it. I wish to bring it to this forum of elites in order to find reasons to believe that giving/taking bribe is wrong ( I am currently personally convinced even the Bible does not condemn it)


Prov 17:8
"A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he succeeds". (NIV)

Prov 21:14
"A gift given in secret soothes anger, and a bribe concealed in the cloak pacifies great wrath". (NIV)

My argument is that it is not a bribe that is wrong in itself, it is the purpose for which you give or take it that may be wrong. A bribe in its simplest definition can be seen as a gift or favour rendered in order to influence another.

When a hubby buys his wife gifts on his way from work in expectation of a superb night work-out...that is a bribe
When you go to eat at a restaurant and you leave your change with the waiter, that is a bribe to ensure you don't wait long before being served the next time you show-up
If you drop something regularly for the gateman and secretary of a major client in order to ensure prompt attention during your appointments, that is a bribe. But who says that is a bad practise, hear what the scripture says

Prov 18:16
"A gift opens the way for the giver and ushers him into the presence of the great". (NIV)





[/b]Hello guys, i had a heated debate with some friends on what does bribe mean and is it wrong to give or take it. I wish to bring it to this forum of elites in order to find reasons to believe that giving/taking bribe is wrong ( I am currently personally convinced even the Bible does not condemn it)


Prov 17:8
"A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he succeeds". (NIV)

Prov 21:14
"A gift given in secret soothes anger, and a bribe concealed in the cloak pacifies great wrath". (NIV)

My argument is that it is not a bribe that is wrong in itself, it is the purpose for which you give or take it that may be wrong. A bribe in its simplest definition can be seen as a gift or favour rendered in order to influence another.

When a hubby buys his wife gifts on his way from work in expectation of a superb night work-out...that is a bribe
When you go to eat at a restaurant and you leave your change with the waiter, that is a bribe to ensure you don't wait long before being served the next time you show-up
If you drop something regularly for the gateman and secretary of a major client in order to ensure prompt attention during your appointments, that is a bribe. But who says that is a bad practise, hear what the scripture says

Prov 18:16
"A gift opens the way for the giver and ushers him into the presence of the great". (NIV)