This is about the Bible or "holy writ" of the Mediterranean whatever. I have found a shameful lie in it. I know about myths, poetry, hyperbole, interpretation etc. Using all those and a tremendous poetic license one could say that the whole thing is, lets say something other than a straight lie. Granting all this, what stands out to me to be a self serving lie is the following:

"in his own image created he him." This is so patently untrue (even if there were such a one) it stands out like a sore thumb.

Staying on Earth alone, the dynosaurs called this place home for 60 million years. We at most a half. And that's not mentioning the trillion other planets and living things. They all look like "him"? Or earth-bound monkeys have a central role in the cosmos?

This is the old adage: give them a bunch of good sounding half truths then sneak in an all-and-out lie once in a while and they will not notice it.

urizen9 im sure you have to have better "evidence" than this... post that next time because this has done nothing more than boast your ignorance of the Bible. your "shameful lie" in the form of an argument states:

the Bible says God created everything in His image, and everything can't look like God, therefore God cannot exist.

its a valid argument unfortunately both premises of your argument are false leaving it to be unsound. we will start with the first... "the Bible says God created everything in His image" Genesis 1:27 says "So God created MAN in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them." e.g.  God has arms and legs, so like Him, we have arms and legs... understand?

even if the first premise were true the second would be flawed because God's image of beauty, art, and love are portreyed in everything on earth, even the dinosaurs...

if your going to take versus out of context, at least make it sound convincing.

-CarpeDiem   

So now there are dinosaurs in the bible?

I nearly pissed myself laughing. Do you genuinely believe this nonsense? Most theists hide behind the ridiculous sham of notions like "incorporeal" but you are much more clear cut and hence much more ostensibly stupid.

Yes.  They were simply called 'dragons', and humans killed all of them off a few thousand years ago.  So says Professor of Biology Kent Hovind.

Thanks for your time

Jay Shrewsbury

All natural phenomena can be explained and are in the process of being explained by science and reason. With induction, nothing can be "proven" with 100% certainly, but the difference between complete certainly and near certainly, for all practical purposes, is negligible. Thus, it is possible, with the right evidence, to "prove," beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Bible, aliens, bigfoot, and the boogeyman, are true/do exist. Disproving these types of things are much harder, due to the supernatural, metaphysical woo-woo crap that usually surround them. That said, there is currently no reliable evidence for the veracity of the Bible, aliens, bigfoot or the boogeyman, although our understanding of the universe compels to reason that there is probably some life on other planets.

Hahahahaha, cough cough.

No.

Probably.

No.

I don't understand your point here, but I'll wait for someone else to explain.

Well, of course.

You are completely wrong.

Thanks for the comments!! Really, THANKS!!

I am not here to convince anyone about anything.

It seems many here are unfamiliar with the discoveries on Flores of the hobbits and the goliaths, again this is not biblical in nature, the goliaths are named so do to there large stature, and the hobbits do to thier small stature, and the things I stated about them are very true, those who say I am making it up, well, do your homework, this is not a fairy tale but rather a very controversial issue among some of the best minds in the field.

It is easy to look at only the facts you know and make an assumption, but you must take in all the facts to make an educated guess. Human evolution is far from being proven, and our evolutionary chain in constantly being updated do to new discoveries that are accepted among the scientists, evolutionists, and archeologists.

and for those that can PROVE the bible is wrong, please bring to my attention what you have found to be wrong, silly, or an outright lie, heck I might even agree with you.

I am not a bible pusher, just someone who likes to look at all the facts and findings, I don't mind being proven wrong, but you must prove me wrong with facts and figures, not just opinions.

Thanks for your time

Jay

Jay, I'm impressed: you came back. I didn't think you would. You didn't make an account, so your comment was effectiveley coming from the anonymous hordes of the internet. You'll notice your name has a high number of posts under it despite your not having posted. That's a good estimate of how many people post without sticking around to discuss their posts.

Thanks for coming back. Really!

I'm not sure about that, but I'll let it slide for now.

I suggest you look at the link below. The dwarf species was simply an offshoot of humanity with a growth disorder.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060821-hobbits.html

I have no idea what this "goliath" species supposedly is though. It certainly isn't mentioned in articles regarding this particular island. You'd think it would be if there was something to it. You'll have to be more specific.

Have you been keeping up with the discoveries on these things Jay? Your information about homo floresiensis was outdated. Perhaps some of your other sources are as well.

I'm not a biblical historian, and I predict that providing proof would inspire a discussion on the bible. Which I'm not interested in discussing. I'll leave this for someone else to respond to, or for yourself, Jay, to look around this website's forums for plenty of evidence of biblical falsity:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/rookhawkins/biblicalerrancy

Ah, welcome back to the forum. I didn't expect you to reply.

I might take a look.

Ouch! While I checking out Lord of the Rings, you might want to look up the evidence for human evolution.

Okay, let's start with Genesis 1.

- "God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness "night." This is incoherent. There is no "separation" between light and darkness. Day and night are caused by the rotation of the Earth.

- "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." No, you don't see blue when you look up because it's water up there, it's because of the atmosphere.

- "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."" No, these didn't spring up overnight. Life had to evolve for billions of years before the Earth had seed-bearing plants and trees.

- "God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." Note that God created night and day before he created the sun. This is impossible. Night and day are caused the rotation of the Earth, exposing its surface to sunlight.

- It doesn't even make any sense that one "governs" the day while the other "governs" the night, for one side of the Earth will be day while the other side will be night, for the Earth is a sphere, not a circle.

- Also, the moon is not a "lesser light." It does not produce light. It reflects the light of the sun.

- "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."" Again, we know that lifeforms evolved, so either God actually created these things over billions of years instead of one day or this is just bunk.

- "Let the land produce living creatures accoding to their kinds: livestock..." God did not create livestock. Livestock is domesticated, breeded by humans.

- "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food." If all the animals were herbivores, then why did God make some of their bodies best for digesting plants while other animals are designed to kill and eat flesh? Had God already set everything up in anticipation of the fall of mankind? In fact, some animals probably couldn't survive only eating plants. Did God change their digestive systems after the fall?

Want me to critique Genesis 2?

As i read down the page,all that i seemed to pick up was just alot of people arguing over who's beliefs are more acceptable,as an athiesti believe we already get that from enough people who view these beliefs as crazy and demonic.So instead of everyone tearing each other down,we need to be as accepting to each other as we would want others to accept our beliefs.I may not believe in god or what the bible has to say about him, but it does teach some good morales. now surley someone will tear me down for writing this, so i say a head of time shame on you for continuing the downward spiral of critisism wich gets us no where.However i thank those that take this to heart and wish you a good day.

I have to disagree. If a theist comes to this site to post something, they have to be expecting an arguement. The whole point of this site is to get rid of irrational precepts, not build them up just to be nice. If you are happy with your religion, be happy with it. Just don't expect anyone to fall all over themselves to be nice after you have spewed a paragraph of irrational bullshit.

Image refers to ethical and rational image, not physical image.  This is easily deduced from various parts of Scripture.  Hermeneutics is your friend.  You mentioned a few 'figures of speech', but didn't delve into such arenas as context, original intent, lanuage, etc. 

When the Bible states (quoting from the 'New International Version'), "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." --- Genesis 1:27, It is referring to the Truth that man has a spirit, or 'inner man' -- that part of a human being (creature) which has the ability to commune with the Creator.

In John 4:24 we read, "God is spirit, and His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." Each one of us possesses the ability to communicate with the Creator through our spirit, regardless of one's conscious decision to do so, or one's conscious decision to deny Him and suppress the Truth that He's instilled in all people.

Does God have a physical body? Yes, He does... incarnated in the form of Jesus of Nazareth a little over two thousand years ago:

"In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made, without Him nothing was made that has been made." --- John 1:1-3

"The Word became flesh (having been spirit from eternity past) and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, Who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." --- John 1:14

Even as an author, existential philosopher and leading atheist, Jean-Paul Sartre could never escape God because he had not only been created, he had been created "in God's image" (Genesis 1:26,27). God had placed the knowl­edge of Himself directly into the being of Sartre. So, even though Sartre stated, "This life owes nothing to God," he actually knew that his atheism was a personal choice to ignore God, not proof that God didn't exist.

http://www.equip.org/articles/objection-overruled?msource=EC110128WKLY&tr=y&auid=7677706