There is a god

Very true.
I think God gave us a free will to chose between right or wrong. Why can't he talk to us one on one? He does, in a way. Events in your life may be God trying to tell you something, and if you listen to them, it will bless you. Then he might give you directions through the Holy Spirit. That is how prophets prophesy.
So, in a way he does talk to you one on one, heart to heart. The only thing much closer would be to actually have him talk to you.

 

Sorry to nitpick but the tetragrammaton transliterated into English is YHWH or (JHVH)

Not YHVH. This is just not accurate!

 

In ancient hebrew the letter for w is also v. it is called vav, the 6th letter. and of course, y is translated into j in english, because there is no j in the hebrew language.

some people prefer to say Yahweh, and others Yahveh. One bad translation is Jehovah. Some other translations are Yavoh, Yahveh, Yahvah etc.

In modern hebrew the name is spelled YHVH - yod hey vav hey, and since the vowels are not shown in hebrew, the vowels in the name Yahweh may be different, that's why no one knows exactly how to pronounce it, although I prefer Yahweh.

 

One bad translation is Jehovah

The translation of Jehovah has been around for centuries! It was the most commonly used name for God. It wasn't until a group started calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses in the early 1930's when then the translation came to be questioned.

The problem is Yahweh is a most literal translation, but if your going to use it you must use that form in all other bible characters;

Jehoiakim,Jehoiarib,Jehonadab,Jehoram, Jehoshabeath,Jehosaphat,Jehosheba,Jehoshua,Jehosabad,Jehozadak,Jehu; just to name a few.

Lovers of serious music are well acquainted with the majestic ?Hallelujah chorus? from Handel?s famous oratorio, The Messiah. Millions of people have heard it sung since its first performance in 1743. But how many have realized that ?Hallelujah? (or, ?Alleluiah?) means ?Praise Jehovah??

 

The translation of Jehovah has been around for centuries! It was the most commonly used name for God. It wasn't until a group started calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses in the early 1930's when then the translation came to be questioned.

Well, no offense to your religion, but I personally don't care what they believe regarding God's name. I wasn't around centuries ago, but if I were, AND I had the level of education I have now, as well as access to information on the subject, I would have taken issue with it then just as I do now. It is a blatant re-writing of Scripture, a fairly needless one at that. And I very much disagree with your assertion that if we change one we MUST change all others (although I don't think such a task would be an unworthy one). I mean, we have some fairly accurate translations of names in there, and then we have "Jehovah" and "Jesus". So as it stands you're using a Bible with good name translations along with bad ones, and you don't appear to be bothered by the fact.

In any case, it shocks me and disturbs me to no end that, at the point we're at now, with the knowledge we've gained, we're still calling the Messiah "Jesus" (I know, I do it too), which comes from the Greek "Iesus", which, quite possibly, is closer to "Zeus saves" rather than the original "Yahshua", meaning "Yahweh saves" or "There is salvation in Yahweh". And then we have the name we're discussing right now, that is, God's name, which He apparently put GREAT importance on (it's written over, I believe, 6,000 times).

Another interesting fact, the King James Translators (and pretty much everyone else) translate the name of God as "LORD", which is also what "Baal" means. And then, take a look at this:

Hosea 2
16
"It will come about in that day," declares the LORD,
"That you will call Me Ishi ("My husband")
And will no longer call Me Baali. ("LORD"? Also, "My master")
17
"For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth,
So that they will be mentioned by their names no more.

I found that fairly interesting.

Anyway, while I'm as guilty as the next modern-day Christian for calling "God" by His more common names and titles, whenever I think about it, I try to call Him by what the people who penned the Bible originally called Him, NOT what some guys a few centuries back fallaciously translated and changed.

 

True, Jehovah has been used for centuries. All I meant is that it is an inaccurate translation.

I kind of like saying Jehovah, it sounds cool, if you know what I mean.

 

Fireman

We have been created with a desire to have that fellowship with the Creator. When we hear the gospel message, in some it rings true to the point of acceptance. In others, other influences are so strong in their lives that they reject the message, but still they yearn for that fellowship.

I don't mean we all yearn to be with the Biblical God. I mean that we all yearn for closeness to the Creator, to the higher power, even IF that yearning only comes in the form of desiring to believe He exists, but not seemingly having a reason to believe such.

Maybe I'm being obtuse. Do you really mean "all" humans? You see, you said (with regard to the existence of a stone), "Why does it even matter? To me, it is merely there." That's my default position with regard to the universe.

On the strict understanding that I'm not in the market for a physics lesson ( ), I accept that it was created somehow. To me, however, that doesn't predicate that the whatever-it-was responsible for that creation is, was or ever will be sentient. In any case, I'd find it difficult to imagine having any kind of "closeness" or "fellowship" with it, nor do I see any point in desiring that.

At the very least, mightn't it be that, whilst God may have created our species with "fellowship" in mind, some of us have since diverged so far from the original 'blueprint' that it no longer applies?

 

Well, no offense to your religion, but I personally don't care what they believe regarding God's name. I wasn't around centuries ago, but if I were, AND I had the level of education I have now, as well as access to information on the subject, I would have taken issue with it then just as I do now. It is a blatant re-writing of Scripture, a fairly needless one at that. And I very much disagree with your assertion that if we change one we MUST change all others (although I don't think such a task would be an unworthy one). I mean, we have some fairly accurate translations of names in there, and then we have "Jehovah" and "Jesus". So as it stands you're using a Bible with good name translations along with bad ones, and you don't appear to be bothered by the fact



Who's using a bible with good and bad translations?



Now thats funny!

God name in the form of the tetragrammaton is in the bible over 6,000 times!

So you think that it is OK for translations to substitute GOD or LORD for the tetragrammaton,huh?
Look in any reference or footnote in almost any bible, because that is exactly what they have done!

If you don't think Gods name is important,
John 17:6, 26
Ex 3:15
Matt 6:9
For starters..................................

 

At the very least, mightn't it be that, whilst God may have created our species with "fellowship" in mind, some of us have since diverged so far from the original 'blueprint' that it no longer applies?

I could accept that. Point conceded.

DarthOb1, you mistake my position... I'm arguing the same thing you're arguing as far as God's name being important and the fact that most translations erroneously translate His name to "LORD".

 

Gottcha

My bad!

 

No prob, Bob- er, Ob1.

 

Prove it, not just by word, but in writing from god it self,and in first hand accounts from you. Pictures and video of god and then you can also prove it by showing me and the rest of the world that god is some all powerful being who can do whatever he/she wants. Show me all of god's powers and then when you can show me all of the other things I have said, I want you to ask God one question face to face. Ask " why the world is so fu**ed up and why God has not done anything about. Then if you are really daring you can ask God how God came into being and I highly doubt that if there is a God that God would say that it just is and will always be in exsistence.

 

Why don't you just admit that you came in here to prove to everyone, including yourself, that nothing will convince you of God's existence, and that you have an agenda against those who believe in Him?

Would have been less to type out.

 

I do not have any thing againest people who believe in God. I just want someone to prove god's existence with hard eveidence, pictures, video, signatures, audio, and anything else that could only come dircetly from God.

 

There already exists something like that: we call it the Bible.

If you want something besides the Bible, you're going to run into the same problem of thinking it was forged by mere humans.

 

Really thats a new one, The Bible hmm, where is it from, o thats right a whole bunch of writers who were around before juses, when juses was living, and after he died. Which if you did not know is a pretty big time span. Sorry but that only is one religous holy book, so if you want to really prove something you have to do it from a non religous source and also god it self would work. I mean if God exists then why doesnt someone just have God come down to earth for a while and then catch it on video and pictures. Then it will play twenty four hours a day on every channel for as long as it takes for everyone on earth to see it and know that God is living, God is a being that looks like man, God is all powerful, and that God really does care about things that are happening on earth.

 

I mean if God exists then why doesnt someone just have God come down to earth for a while and then catch it on video and pictures.

Did you ever consider that maybe if God exists, He doesn't want to, nor have to, bend to the will of humans? Maybe God chooses to do what He wants, when He wants, and there's nothing you nor I can do about it.

Then it will play twenty four hours a day on every channel for as long as it takes for everyone on earth to see it and know that God is living,

And how would a video prove this?

God is a being that looks like man,

In that case, maybe He simply IS a man.

God is all powerful,

Again, how would a video prove this?

and that God really does care about things that are happening on earth.

Well, I'm not sure a a single video could indicate this, but I know several events recorded over a large timespan, from many different authors, would get the job done. Hey, wait, didn't you just describe the Bible as being such a thing?

In this day and age, almost ANYTHING is possible with media. You can put anything you want in a movie and make it look authentic. If someone came out with such a video the world would dismiss the entire thing as a hoax.

 

Well, I'm not sure a a single video could indicate this, but I know several events recorded over a large timespan, from many different authors, would get the job done. Hey, wait, didn't you just describe the Bible as being such a thing?

In this day and age, almost ANYTHING is possible with media. You can put anything you want in a movie and make it look authentic. If someone came out with such a video the world would dismiss the entire thing as a hoax.

See if there is a God, then all life everywhere is just one big game. God just exsists right? so God can do anything it wants and because it can it decieds to mess with the things it has created.

 

That's a possibility. What can you do about it?

On the other hand, there's a chance He's a logical, ordered, caring God Who desires for you to know Him. Perhaps - and this is just a suggestion - perhaps, instead of throwing your hands in the air and saying to yourself that you'll never believe in God, and even if you did, you wouldn't follow Him, you should seek Him out. Use the mind God gave you, look at the world around you, observe its current state, and take a look at the evidence of the past (which does NOT include the theories of man, but rather observable evidence in the present), and actually cry out to Him? Humble yourself before Him. It's worth a try, no? What have you got to lose?

 

DarthOB1:
"Well, no offense to your religion, but I personally don't care what they believe regarding God's name. I wasn't around centuries ago, but if I were, AND I had the level of education I have now, as well as access to information on the subject, I would have taken issue with it then just as I do now. It is a blatant re-writing of Scripture, a fairly needless one at that. And I very much disagree with your assertion that if we change one we MUST change all others (although I don't think such a task would be an unworthy one). I mean, we have some fairly accurate translations of names in there, and then we have "Jehovah" and "Jesus". So as it stands you're using a Bible with good name translations along with bad ones, and you don't appear to be bothered by the fact



Who's using a bible with good and bad translations?



Now thats funny!

God name in the form of the tetragrammaton is in the bible over 6,000 times!

So you think that it is OK for translations to substitute GOD or LORD for the tetragrammaton,huh?
Look in any reference or footnote in almost any bible, because that is exactly what they have done!

If you don't think Gods name is important,
John 17:6, 26
Ex 3:15
Matt 6:9
For starters.................................. "




Well, as a matter of fact, I think God's name is very important. It is very effective to use the name of Yahweh in prayer.
And yes, I know that the Rabbis changed the name of Yahweh to HaShem (The Name), Adonai (Lord), or El Shaddai (meaning God Almighty, Aramaic words used around Jesus's time).
The Rabbis made an attempt to sheild the name of Yahweh from profanity and misuse. Good intentions, but bad outcome. It is very important to use His name, although I do not think it is bad to say Jehovah or other variations of the name.

 

Whatever word or name you wish to call G-D has little bearing on anything. G-D is everything, therefore calling G-D by anything is akin to saying G-D. Whats more important is the intent in which G-D's name has been said or used. And be sure G-D knows how things were intended to be said.

prove it by showing me and the rest of the world that god is some all powerful being who can do whatever he/she wants

That may not be suffice for you at this time. And dont try and speak for others. Most of the world has been witness to G-D in their own way. You will too, in time.

god is some all powerful being who can do whatever he/she wants

Yes. In fact it's rather difficult, you may find in time, to do something you dont want. Hard to realize you wanted to stub your toe at times, though.

Ask " why the world is so fu**ed up and why God has not done anything about.

Thats a mighty big assumption you make. For G-D to make the world less fubbed up, it'd have to be fubbed up in the first place. If you'd like, you can message me and say what you feel is fubbed up with the world.

Then if you are really daring you can ask God how God came into being and I highly doubt that if there is a God that God would say that it just is and will always be in exsistence.

G-D is and will always be in existance. You have to be daring to ask G-D such a question? If you message me, you may want to also describe who or what you believe G-D is and why you'd 'need' to be daring to ask G-D something.

I just want someone to prove god's existence with hard eveidence, pictures, video, signatures, audio, and anything else that could only come dircetly from God.

As I said, thats purely on an individual basis. Anything else would come across as a cheap Hollywood movie or something. Thats not to say G-D doesn't show things to masses all the time, but it takes each individual, separately, to digest things. Would you want any other way? Of course not.

God is living
I believe so. G-D cant not exist.

God is a being that looks like man
Man is a being who was made in G-D's image. Lets not get that backwards. Qui-Rune, where are you?

God is all powerful
Now you're just trying to butter G-D up.

life everywhere is just one big game
Life, bob, is what YOU make of it. If YOU make a game of life, dont complain when life makes a game of you. Wait a minute! Isn't there a game called 'Life' ? Those folk were onto something! I spun a 7!

G-D

 

LOL G-D

 

I'll be sure to look down in hell for you.

 

I will look for you in hell also.
Theists usally do not try to prove creationism but rather disprove evolutionism. In fact this is something that religion is quite weak at doing. Proving that it is right, they can easily prove science wrong by saying that god created everything but beside that their only proof is holy texts which are composed of way to much fantasy and not enough fact.

I thought to myself "what a funny idea, hype up events of the past and predict events of the future, then explain that an invisble being created everything which by the way is all powerful and loves everyone of its creations, but if they commint a sin and do not admit their worngs they will go to hell and suffer in a place full of fire and horrorbile things forever."

If a theist wants see just how much true information is in any holy text, he or she should take out every religious reference.
Go on follow your mindless religion if it makes you happy.

 

darthOB1 Thank you for waiting so long, but upon reading your post, I hate to disappoint you, but I have to disagree with your conclusions (Assume I got even that right ).

Floods happen. In the past 500 years, name an major inhabited area that has not gotten a flood? Even if there are places that have not, one has probably happened close to the few that not have had any. Also none of the religious descriptions you gave include anything about a flood.

The details are everything. If enough of the details are different enough then it does not really matter if there are common themes throughout. If the details are so different then I would find it more of a coincidence than a link.

Also several places you cited the Bible, however the fact that the Bible is mostly internally consistent is not evidence for its accuracy (it is evidence that it is not inaccurate, slightly different things [the whole ?if P then Q? does not mean ?If not P then not Q?]).

Today, there is hardly a nation on the earth that does not have a legend concerning a global flood, and traces of the tower-building account are likewise to be found in the legends of mankind.

Yet very little of what you explained talks about a flood or tower building civilization. Not to mention what Zap at one point said about you not mentioning the Native American?s and others (although I suspect that they too have legends of floods and such?)


I am sorry, but even if the gods are common, I can think of dozens likely reasons why they would be similar. From travelers and more open religions to this or that group being conquered or exiled to the very extreme case of the Bible being edited so it fits together. You saying that the Egyptians gods are very similar to the Babylonian gods is something that I do not see (it may just be that you didn?t fully explain them, but from your descriptions, you didn?t say that Ishtar was murdered and brought back to life by one of his consorts as Osiris was).

It makes sense that many regions that have many gods would have some similar god. Given that children are still miracles, having a god for fertility makes sense. Since farming was survival, having a god for crops would be good. To explain the universe, it makes sense to have gods to fill in the gaps of knowledge. I don?t really consider two cultures having some gods for the same thing a link with that in mind.

I feel like I am saying that if the religions are way too similar then odds are they did come from each other in some way (exiles started elsewhere or travelers told other cultures of their gods), and if they are not similar enough then it is just an explainable coincidence. I feel you presented too much information. Too many details that differ from one religion to the other that it more or less says that they are all different. Of some of the general similarities, gods having human weakness, gods coming back to life, etc, are in my mind very general and very explainable (actually those two things in particular sort of go hand in hand, if a god can has weakness, it can be harmed, so it can die, but a god can?t die, so it would have to come back). There are some similarities such as:

The symbol of the god Ahura Mazda was much like the representation of the Assyrian Asshur, namely, a winged circle, from which, at times, a bearded man with the vertical tail of a bird emerges.

However that is one detail among dozens that you gave and from my point of view, the only one (with that specific religion) that is similar to other religions (Babylonian if I remember right). You did mention that many have linked Anahita to Ishtar and others since they are both violent horny chicks (more or less, I am paraphrasing). But again this is one god among many, and an important and common type of god.

And the Greek/Romans gods: I thought they were the same in everything but name in general. Given that their empires overlapped (in space not in time) it makes sense that they would be similar to each other, they would have