Existence of the God of the Bible

Recommended Posts

L.B. said:  "MODS: I'm formally throwing my hat in the ring. If someone other than Jon himself is going to be appointed to choose or invite an opponent for his debate, I want to be on that list."


Jon said: (regarding his definition of god)  "No God of the bible (this is ex-christian forum)? The alpha and omega God almighty,all wise all knowing all true"



Debate Guidelines: To propose a formal debate, the following is required

1. General topic area (examples: Sexuality, Apologetics, Christology, Evolution, etc.).

2. Proposition. Must be a formal statement. Examples:

"The apostle Paul taught, in 1 Corinthians chapter seven, that divorced persons may marry."

"Creationism is supported by science."

"The Testimonium Flavium is historically valid.

NOTE 1: We are ExChristians, so a debate that presupposes that Christianity is factual is not appropriate. For instance, "Did Jesus' sacrifice bring salvation to all or just the elect?", would be a debate between believers, not between a believer and a non-believer, because it presumes that Christianity's claims are factual.

NOTE 2: Members of ExC.NET are former Christians, we are not "never been Christians". Please keep in mind this fact when debating here.

3. Debate parameters. These should follow basic debate rules, where the affirmative begins, the counter responds. Rounds of debate must be specified.

  example debate format said:

Round One:

Proponent opens - 1500 word limit

Opponent refutes - 1500 word limit


Round Two:

Proponent refutes above - 1000 word limit

Opponent refutes above - 1000 word limit


Round Three:

Proponent cross-examines - 3 questions only.

Opponent answers - 250 words each question.


Round Four:

Opponent cross-examines - 3 questions only.

Proponent answers - 250 words each question.


Round Five:

Proponent concludes - 500 word limit

Opponent concludes - 500 word limit


Membership Q&A

Member questions - 3 questions to each participant. 1 question only per member. A total of 6 questions asked.




Word Count - The best way to make sure your word count is within the given limits is to use an application such as Microsoft Word. Paste your document into Word and click on 'properties' under the dropdown menu 'File'. There is a tab that gives statistics. One of those statistics is a word count. The moderator will not count greetings and other such comments at the beginning and end of the post in the word count.


Proposal - Give your proposal an accurate short title descriptive of the thesis you will propose. Clearly state the background of your argument, be specific. (Catholic, reformed protestant, atheist, mormon, etc…) RESEARCH your topic beforehand and present a complete argument that is clear and well thought out. Define any terms our members or your opponent may not be clear on. Your Proposal may not exceed 1500 words.


Counter Proposal - The opponents may present one counter proposal specific to the proponent problem area. By this, we mean that the counterproposal must deal with the arguments presented by the proponent. State what the background of your counter argument is. Research your topic. Counter proposals should include a reasonable alternative. Define terms. Counter Proposal may not exceed 1500 words.


Rebuttal - Used to respond to the opposition’s lines of argument made in the proposal and counter proposal, and to extend arguments, clarify or introduce new evidence related to previous arguments. (New arguments in rebuttal are left to the discretion of the participants, but the participant should only advance new arguments if they have successfully addressed their opponent's arguments. The participant will risk their position if they fail to address their opponent and opt to "change the subject." In other words, new arguments are introduced at the debater’s own risk.) Rebuttals may not exceed 1000 words.


Cross Examination – Each participant will have an opportunity to ask the opposition 3 questions in cross-examination. Questions should be brief and specific and constructed as to not require an answer to exceed a couple paragraphs. Answers must deal directly with the questions. Answers may not exceed 250 words per question.


Conclusions - Demonstrate how you have established or refuted the thesis. Conclusions may not exceed 500 words.


Membership Q&A - Questions must be approved by the moderator/judge prior to them being answered. Post your questions after conclusions are complete. The Moderator will delete questions not chosen and mark selected questions to be answered as approved.

3 questions to each participant for a total of 6 questions will be approved.






Evidence- ONLY use evidence that is accurate and thoroughly referenced in your presentation. Evidence will be accurately and directly quoted. (ALL EVIDENCE MUST BE FROM A PUBLISHED SOURCE, AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND VERIFIABLE.) The first time a source is presented, the debater must state the full source when introducing the evidence. A “full source” is assumed to include author’s name, author’s qualifications (when apparent in the original), full date, and title of source with page numbers. Once a source has been cited, evidence subsequently cited from the source need only include the author and/or publication name as well as a phrase along the lines of “previously cited.”


Conduct - Absolutely no personal attacks or ‘flames’. Please address your criticisms to arguments, not to people. If you violate this rule, your post will be deleted, and at the discretion of the moderator, you may be removed from the debate forum.


Important: Remember, debates are constructed for the benefit of the membership/listener, not your opponent. In other words, address your arguments to the audience! (Eg: "Mr. Smith has not shown how 'A' is true, because...)


4. If there is a specific person you wish to debate please state their name or state if you want the ExC members to choose an opponent.


Participants have been notified. Let the debate begin!









Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

I patiently await the news that Jon's proposition has been formally presented.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and 14 hours later, still silence from @Jon.


Not shocked.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 hours now, give or take.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 hours and change.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, lurkers! 44-ish hours now, and still no official proposition for debate from @Jon.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I know we have a new platform but I believe it still holds that any thread inactive for 30 days is automatically locked. 


The next post here should be from Jon with his opening statement. Okay?

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, Jon is just another religious troll, but a debate might be fun anyway. Would anyone like to be a devil's advocate (!) and stand in for Jon in the debate? I'm pretty sure someone around here remembers how to argue the existence of the God of the Bible.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to debate this, but this sub-forum has more rules that the Old Testament. Besides that, God has obviously sent a strong delusion to all of the Ex-Christians here, and thus they are unable to receive the truth, making a debate not just fluous, but superfluous. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



besides that, God has obviously sent a strong delusion to all of the Ex-Christians here


Define "God", please - to which god are you referring, and on what grounds do you claim to possess authority to proclaim what this god has "obviously" done?



That would have been fun - see, @Jon ? It's always been a very, very simple thing. You propose a debate topic concerning your claims about your god, and I reply with the above.

My opening statement would have been:


"I submit that @Jon cannot possibly speak definitively about the god of the Judeo-Christian Bible; Jon lacks any verifiable, recognized authority to teach - such recognized authority coming from an established secular or religious academic institution or Christian denominational governing body."


Your debate would have been a non-starter, dear boy. You can't even demonstrate enough facility with Scriptural translation, exegesis or any other of the most basic academic rigors involved in teaching the Bible in a venue where your authority to do so would be recognized even when your assertions were opposed or condemned.


See what I mean? Funny thing is, I have legitimate Bible-college (pretty much THE bastion of Evangelical fundamentalism in the USA) time under my belt and have been licensed to preach and teach more than once.


You wouldn't even be able to tell the spectators of this little scuffle WHY on Earth they should even believe your version of the story.


I've said it before, will say it now and surely will need to break it out again for future idiot trolls...


You have no way to prove that you are in any way a recognized authority - so there's no possible way you can assert anything RE: "the god of the Bible", because the best you can do is offer YOUR OPINION.


Your opinion on what the Bible says or doesn't say, means or doesn't mean is WORTHLESS. An opinion is not a position acceptable in a debate. Only claims that you attempt to PROVE by a preponderance of factual evidence are acceptable in formal debate. By the way, that means you have more or better answers to a question than your opponent does - it doesn't mean you have EVERY answer and it doesn't mean you know everything.


My opinion is that olives are disgusting and should not be food for people. Lots of people disagree. Your opinion is that your accepted version of someone else's version of someone else's version of a god, in a collection of writings that you are not qualified to translate or teach from, is "true".


Why should I believe you over against ANY OTHER RANDOM CHRISTIAN who disagrees with you, let alone over against theology that has stood opposed to your idiotic ideas for well over 2,000 Christian-era years and well over 5,000 Judeo-centric years and well over 6,000 Veda-centric years?


You can't even tell me why I should listen to you and not a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Zoroastrian. Every one of those groups (and their near-countless splinter-groups) have histories and legacies far, far longer than whatever cherry-picking evan-jelly-fish bullshit-factory spat you out.


Get your big-boy pants on and come to the Arena with something worth debating, or fuck off already.

  • Like 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, L.B. said:






Define "God", please - to which god are you referring, and on what grounds do you claim to possess authority to proclaim what this god has "obviously" done?




You know I was funnin', right? I'm assuming you know that, and that your response as aimed more at Jon.

I don't want to clog up this thread, but my answer (were I still a Christian) would have been that the God you need defined is the one you rail against.  Your reaction is the proof to the obvious truth of your God-sent delusion, and I don't claim nor do I need 'authority' to 'proclaim' the blah blah blah...but whatever. 


I remember when there were more debates here at Ex-C and I do miss reading them.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Of course I know you were kidding - I figured @Jon the Christard troll was lurking, so I posted an answer to you that showed him how a debate actually works.


I know all about the "if you react strongly to my stupid suggestions about invisible men and magic fruit and talking snakes, then it's because in your heart you really believe it" canard.


I live with a person trapped in the circular, maddening hamster habitat of a fundy Christard worldview. That response is sometimes her only defense against actually having to assess those idiotic beliefs honestly, which she won't do, because she needs a magical Sky Daddy to make up for her asshole of a real one.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jon Here is my argument for your God.

For any trolls reading this, I am only doing this as a Yahweh's advocate in place of Jon. I in fact do not believe in the existence of the bible God, as I am also an Ex-Christian. That being said I do not count this statement in my initial 1500 word proposal. The following is 1498 words according to Microsoft Word.


The Existence of Bible God


                In my mind the best proof of the existence of The Bible's God, is creation itself. There have been thousands of years of misinterpretations, but the bible when thoroughly researched will yield the truth.

 God’s Time:

                First and foremost the biggest argument against God’s biblical creation vs. science’s evolution, is the time frame. Many Christians and scientists alike misinterpret the bible and place the creation at just over 6-7000 years ago. First I will describe the true time frame of God.

 2 pet 3:8- Be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 Psalms 90:4- For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past

 These scriptures are just to drive home the point that God is not held to our standard of time and space.  What we considered hundreds of thousands of years on earth were just as days in a week to him. He took his time with each stage of creation. Taking millions of years in “earth time” to perfect this world for his most important creation, mankind.

In the first chapter of Genesis the bible goes over creation in relation to days. However, in the second chapter we find a somewhat different wording.

Gen 2:4 these are the Generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

As we can see if we read further into the bible. There were whole generations of time within those 6 days of creation. Maybe I will get a chance to cover God’s time frame more, further into the debate. For now though, I must make a few more points.

Intelligent Design:

                As you can see all around us, our environment works together for our benefit. Let’s take plant life for instance. Without plant life we would cease to exist. During the day plants release oxygen and take in carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis Plants release ten times the amount of oxygen during the day than what they absorb at night. http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/sleeping-with-plants/ Therefore, they provide oxygen for all life on earth including themselves as they also have to breath oxygen at night.

                But that is just one piece in the puzzle that is life on earth. As has been said about plant life, we would also cease to exist if the earth’s water evaporation system didn’t work like it does. Most life on this earth is primarily made up of water. We humans are 4/5ths water. Without it we would die fairly quickly of dehydration. Yet we need clean, consumable water. 97% of the earths water is salt water http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/wherewater.html Without the earths process of evaporation eventually water on land would dry up or become stagnant. Likewise even the gravitational pull of the moon on our oceans keep the oceans from growing stagnant.

                Water circulates through our bodies carrying oxygen, minerals, nutrients etc. to every cell in our body. Likewise, it is the same scenario in all other plant and animal life on earth. While some plants and animals can store water for long periods of time. They all need water to survive. Earth’s water is drawn up through evaporation, leaving any contaminants behind, and then transported over the earth through clouds to be redeposited in the streams, rivers, and lakes for the use of life on earth.

                Now one may say that oxygen production, earth’s water filtration, and water distribution systems are not enough to prove intelligent design. But we can point out various earth functions that point to intelligent design all day long. Most of which, if removed, would result in no life on earth or an extremely retarded growth of life on earth. I will make a short list without going into as much detail just to make my point:

Pollenation of plant life, (birds, mammals, bugs and wind all working together for the purpose of seed production on earth)

Spreading seeds across the earth (God made animals to eat the fruit of plant life, carry the seeds eaten in the fruit miles and miles, across mountains even. Being fertilized in there intestines they are then deposited in another area and allowed to grow again.)

Even the wind itself is a testament to Gods design on earth. Without wind life on earth would also cease to exist.

                I have a limited number of words to make my arguments, so I will move on to my next important biblical point taken from Isiah 40:22. We will go over two things from this scripture.

"It is he that sitteth upon the Circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

First of all I want to point out that members here have said ignorantly many times that they thought the world was flat in biblical times. Yet here we have a scripture that says God sits upon the circle of the earth. God knew that the world wasn’t flat. Therefore he included this knowledge in his inspired word.

Secondly, his word states that the heavens, meaning our atmosphere is stretched out as a curtain and as a tent for us to dwell in. A tent is a protective dwelling to provide temporary or permanent shelter from the elements. Our earth’s atmosphere protects us form ultra violet radiation from the sun, extreme temperature changes, and falling objects from space just to name a few. This link to the Smithsonian research center will provide a more detailed description than what I can include in this document. http://forces.si.edu/atmosphere/02_04_00.html

                In Job 26:7- He stretcheth out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Once again we see the truth in God’s word thousands of years before more modern astronomers concluded that the earth in fact hung on nothing, but is floating in orbit around the sun. This is something that one would probably expect to find in a book inspired by an all knowing god, wouldn’t it?

                V.8 continues with “He bindeth up the waters in his clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.” Indicating that it was through his design that our Earth’s evaporation system and atmosphere work together to transport massive amounts of water from one place to another. Water doesn’t just simply evaporate up then fall straight back down. The clouds are held together by God’s design to be transported for life on earth.     


            My last point to make is that after he created the earth to be a perfect habitat for life, he then created mankind after his image. There are many things that set us apart from other animals but the most important is our intelligence. Our very consciousness separates us from animals whose only drive is the instincts instilled in them from birth. We are born defenseless and must be nurtured into adulthood and taught how to survive. But we have the ability to create just as our God was a creator. Human beings are the only species that can bring what is in their imagination to fruition. We have the ability to determine the difference between right and wrong.  We have the ability to learn. Over time we have invented all the manmade luxuries you enjoy today. I think we can all see how our intelligence excels far beyond the capability of an ape. While we may have similarities, we are not the same.

                Also as God blessed man in Gen 1:28, 29 by giving us dominion over everything he has made. We have fulfilled that scripture and it is obvious that all of earth’s resources were put here for our use, just as god’s word has said.


                As formerly stated, Earth and all of creation were designed for life. More specifically it was designed to be a habitat for his ultimate creation, which was mankind. While science cannot explain beyond a reasonable doubt why the universe came to be. Also, the specifics of god’s creation may have been lost through time and translation. We can still see how God has designed all life on earth with a purpose. We also have to remember that Just as the parables of Jesus were worded in such a way as to convey his teachings in terms they could understand, likewise creation had to be put in terms that a crude and uneducated population would be able to understand. Yet he saw fit to give us the ability to understand earth’s functions on a higher level as time progressed. Even our purpose is given in the bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

I anxiously await your reply.

Best Regards,

              Dark Bishop

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





The controversy regarding Creationism versus the theory of evolution is likely the most hotly-contested issue in the world of Christianity today. It is founded, of course, in a belief in "the God of the Bible (sic)", a theological claim which I will address at the very end of my statement.


I say "the world of Christianity", and not "the world of science", or "in the realm of religion versus science", because the fatal flaw in the arguments in favor of Creationism is NOT a flaw in scientific analysis, though there are many. Indeed, any one of the many wrong scientific claims WOULD be fatal to the Creationist cause if they were not dwarfed by the greatest flaw of all.


I submit that the fatal flaw in the Creationist model of the origins of life is Christianity itself. I further submit that because this flaw exists, and my opponent holds one opinion over another in its regard, he is entirely unqualified to represent 'Christianity' as touches 'Creationism'. I say this namely because he is without a unified foundation of belief on one hand, and is without any teaching authority at all on the other hand.


Since the writing of the documents that came to comprise the "New Testament", there have been major conflicts over the understanding of the ideas presented in those writings.

The most fractious and still-contested issue in Christianity today is that of the authority to interpret and teach Christian Scripture. The two most significant positions regarding authority to interpret and teach Christian theology are the classical (Tridentine, or grounded in the decrees of the Council of Trent) Roman Catholic position and the Reformed or Reformation position, the genesis of which is essentially grounded in the rejection of Tridentine decrees. To wit:


Tridentine (Roman Catholic): "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the [Roman Catholic] Church, that is, to the Pope and to the college of bishops in communion with Him" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 100) (brackets mine).


Reformation/Protestant: "by the Holy Spirit overcoming sin, believers may read and understand truth from the Bible itself, though understanding is difficult, so the means used to guide individual believers to the true teaching is often mutual discussion within the church" (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Main_principles). 




In short, the Roman Catholic position as stated above absolutely prohibits any private interpretation of Scripture when such interpretations are put forward as authoritative - NO individual may presume to teach anything that is in conflict with the collected and collective documents and proclamations of the Church since her inception.


Christian Scripture itself lends weight to this position, especially in The Second Epistle Of Peter, Chapter One, verses 19-21:


"19And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost."


First, WE (the royal 'we', speaking of the authority invested in Peter and the Apostles by Christ Himself) have 'the more firm prophetical word' - we, Peter says, who knew the Old Testament AND were with Jesus and saw and heard His works and words and know how they fulfill previous prophecy.


Second, 'no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation', prophecy here NOT speaking of "FORE-telling" future events, but rather "FORTH-telling", or teaching the significance of events that have taken place. Peter is insisting that no individual could simply come along and imbue the teachings of the Old Testament (the 'Christian Bible' of the Apostles and early church) with random or perverted agendas.


Third, 'prophecy came NOT by the will of man at any time; but the holy MEN of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit' [emphases mine]. Clearly, Peter is rejecting any sort of claim to teaching authority that did not generate from within the collective of the Apostles.


Peter was and is recognized by every Roman Catholic who has ever lived as the first Pope, i.e. Bishop Of Rome and Head of the Universal Church. If his words are to be taken literally, there can be no admittance of outside teaching authority that does not come from the source, namely, the Apostolic tradition which has been clearly delineated throughout history, as shown here:






The Protestant/Reformation position is summed up first and most succinctly in two statements made by Martin Luther, the German former Augustinian monk who drafted ninety-five theological theses which were opposed to accepted Catholic teaching worldwide:


1) "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone... I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."
Statement in defense of his writings at the Diet of Worms (19 April 1521), quoted in Martin Luther by Martin Brecht




2) "If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing' (Martin Luther, An Open Letter On Translating, 1530).


In this total and disdainful rejection of Roman Catholic teaching authority, Luther puts forward that the plain sense of Scripture and the use of human reason are completely sufficient for a correct understanding of Biblical theology, to include understanding and facility sufficient enough to teach others.




My worthy opponent presents himself as a proponent of a Creationist worldview that is uniquely Protestant - in the main, his version of Creationism MUST have a literal six-24-hour-day creation, a literal Eden, etc, because later important theological issues are affected by non-literal interpretations.


As a so-called Protestant (he and his kind have been called Protestant for 500 years now, so that boot fits), my opponent's position is in direct conflict with other Protestant worldviews 

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#Christianity ). 


The very existence of other accepted worldviews within post-Reformation Christianity means that my opponent cannot teach any but his own, second-hand or more, interpretation of Scripture - interpretations that have been as hotly contested between members of INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANT CHURCHES as they have between denominations or entire ecclesiastic bodies.


Thus, he has no unified foundation within Protestantism upon which to debate "THE TRUTH" of anything regarding "the God of the Bible" or Creationism.




My opponent presents himself as Protestant, and decidedly NOT as Roman Catholic; thus, he fails ipso facto to meet the requirements for teaching anything authoritatively according to Rome.


Since my opponent would never be recognized as having authority to teach over ONE BILLION people in the world who self-identify as Roman Catholic, and thus under the authority of the Pope and bishops, he cannot possibly be counted as an authority on Scripture from that perspective, either.


Finally, as regards the primary topic of this debate, "The Existence Of The God Of The Bible" - that topic is so arbitrary, given all the evidence I have already presented, that it is hardly worth going on past this introductory document. To presume that my opponent is even QUALIFIED to teach (which he clearly is NOT) is to render unto him the power to settle the arguments over the NATURE, CHARACTERISTICS and SOVEREIGNTY of the deity described in the Bible - arguments that have fomented for over 5,000 years and have spawned THOUSANDS of competing Protestant denominations, not to mention splinter-Catholic and even warring Old-Testament-Jewish factions!


To sum up: my opponent is completely unqualified to address the existence of the God of the Bible because my opponent lacks any teaching authority which is not based entirely upon his own grasp of theology, linguistics, history, ecclesiology, etc - a position which puts him at odds with EVERY established religious authority claiming ownership of the Bible. Thus, his position vis-a-vis 'Creationism' is a fallacious thing which exists nowhere in toto except in his own over-inflated sense of self-importance.


Thank you.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I submit to the viewing audience that my opponent has missed the point of this debate. Nothing he submitted in his initial proposal attempted to refute the existence of the bibles God. Apparently he thinks this is a debate on my personal ability to discuss this topic. In my opinion his tactic is a demonstration of his inability to refute God in his own mind, let alone on this formal debate.

        It seems that my worthy opponent can only accept the view of the Roman Catholic Church, as true authority. This surprises me. While protestant churches may all differ one from another. No accepted organized Christian faith  has contradicted biblical teachings more than the Roman Catholic Church. We could form a separate debate just on that subject alone. I won’t spend much time on it here, but will briefly address the issue.

     First, The Catholic position that Peter was the first Pope is loose at best, as it only sites one scripture Mathew 16:18-19. If one reads a few verses further we will also see that Jesus calls Peter Satan in verse 23 of the same chapter. And is verified again in the account of Mark 8:33. While I in no wise contend that Peter was actually Satan by any means, I would also not claim him as Pope because of one scripture. I think a better person to claim as Pope would be Paul, as he wrote 13 books of the bible as opposed to Peters 2 books. Paul is also the one who set up the hierarchy of the church in 1 Timothy. 

     Secondly, the Catholic Church throughout history has repeatedly went against God’s biblical account and the teachings of Jesus Christ as shown in this link. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_vs_bible.htm . Also throughout history forced conversion was enforced by the Roman Catholic Church, which also contradicts the teachings of Christ. These well known facts lead me, and most protestants, to believe that they were in fact not the church of Christ at all.

Lastly, it wasn’t the Catholic Church, but through the efforts of protestant reformers, that God’s word was published and preached among all nations according to the prophecy of Jesus Christ. Mark 13:10.

But this debate is not about my personal authority to teach, who was the first Pope, whether or not the Catholic Church is truly Christ’s church, or which church follows the teachings of the bible. My opponent effectively wasted his first 1500 words to prove nothing, and not once did he effectively refute that creation is a product of intelligent design. Nor did he attempt to prove that that intelligent designer himself was not The biblical God. But even in his own assessment of the qualifications to debate this topic he did lend credit to my argument by lending me this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#Christianity ,


If everyone would be so kind as to scroll past the first paragraph down to the catholic churches stance on scientific findings. We will see that the Catholic church is beginning to accept that “there is no conflict between Christianity and scientific theory.” Likewise it also states that “all contemporary churches support and accept theistic evolution.” I will also provide this link which reiterates most of my original argument which is supported by The Gospel Coalition. https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/.  The acceptance of scientific fact in the Christian community warrants a fresh look at the scripture and the way we have historically interpreted it.

But enough of this! I will not waste my whole rebuttal on my opponents wasted counter proposal but will further my assessment that even science is beginning to prove God’s intelligent design.

I would like to present in this rebuttal, the work of Stephen C. Meyer who earned his PHD at Cambridge University in the UK and is co-founder of The Center for Science and Culture. 
He has in recent years caused an upset in the scientific community through his extensive study on evolution, as it relates to Darwins Theory of evolution In “On the origin of species”. In  Stephen Meyer's book, “Darwins Doubt” He focuses on the one admitted flaw to Charles Darwins theory. A period in the fossil record known as the “Cambrian Explosion”. Here is an excerpt from the Stephen Meyer’s book “Darwins Doubt”.

“This book addresses Darwin’s most significant doubt and what has become of it. It examines an event during a remote period of geological history in which numerous animal forms appear to have arisen suddenly and without evolutionary precursors in the fossil record, a mysterious event commonly referred to as the “Cambrian explosion.” As he acknowledged in the Origin, Darwin viewed this event as a troubling anomaly—one that he hoped future fossil discoveries would eventually eliminate.”

Stephen Meyer repeatedly brings evidence to the forefront that show, as time progressed and as more evidence was collected, Darwin had good reason to be troubled. But future discoveries have not supported Darwins theory and have only complicated it more. In Meyer’s book he also addresses all the apologetics from Darwinian supporters through the years. These apologies were also proven wrong. I will leave you with this final excerpt from the book “Darwin’s Doubt.”

“I’ve already explained why the received version of evolutionary theory, neo-Darwinism, fails to account for the explosion of information and form in the Cambrian period. I’ve also examined more recent evolutionary theories and shown why they too fail to explain key aspects of the evidence. To this point, then, much of the evidence has returned a negative verdict. It has told us a lot about what, in all probability, did not cause the Cambrian explosion. But an accumulating body of evidence that makes one set of explanations less and less plausible may also begin to paint a picture of an alternative cause and the true explanation.”


My assessment is that The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob created life in the beginning and evolved it to what we see today. 

Once again I anxiously await your reply,
Dark Bishop

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reversal of my own personal BS during this debate. As I stated in my OP I was only playing yahweh's advocate in this debate. This debate didn't go as I thought it would do to personal issues in real life. So now I have to reverse my own proposal because I don't want some questioning Christian to use my argument as their own excuse.


Greetings friends,

First I am going to address the time line I presented in my opening proposal. I want to tell you guys a personal story first. My oldest son got a telescope several years ago. We set it up in the back yard and of course started trying to zoom in on the moon. It took awhile to say the least but we were finally able to do it. This began my first serious issues with the bible. And I don't know why it took seeing it to believe it. I mean, I knew there were craters on the moon. I had seen pictures, I had read books in school, and science class told us about it. But when I zoomed in on the moon and saw the crater scarred surface of the moon I just knew the earth wasn't as young as the bible said.


I was very troubled after this and it took a couple of months before I straightened it out to continue in the faith. I came in contact with an old friend of mine who had a master's in biology. She was also a christian. So I asked her how she reconciled the time frame of the bible with the time frame of science. And she reminded me of the scripture I mentioned in my OP. That a 1000 years is as a day with the Lord and a day is as a 1000 years. So then it clicked. She had effectively helped me kick the can of my faith down the road for a few more years. And in my mind it actually made me feel better about God's creation. I felt like he had taken his time to get the earth ready for us, just as I had stated in my OP.


But there are holes in this theory just like in any other apologetic attempt at reconciling the bible, especially theory of biblical creation. Let's face it. We can look at later scripture such as I did and begin twisting it around if we want but let's look at the genesis. 


Genesis 1

 1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


Let's look to the Hebrew dictionary at the word light in this instant. 



Original: אור

Transliteration: 'ôr

Phonetic: ore

BDB Definition:

  1. light
    1. light of day
    2. light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
    3. day-break, dawn, morning light
    4. daylight
    5. lightning
    6. light of lamp
    7. light of life
    8. light of prosperity
    9. light of instruction
    10. light of face (figuratively)
    11. Jehovah as Israel's light

Origin: from H215

TWOT entry: 52a

Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine

Strong's Definition: From H215; illumination or (concretely) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.): - bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.


In the Hebrew definition the light was literally the light of day. Yet somehow the light of day came days before the sun was created. If we go down further in the g-k aspects of the word one could still twist it I suppose so let's dig a lil deeper and look at the words Day and Night.



Original: יום

Transliteration: yôm

Phonetic: yome

BDB Definition:

  1. day, time, year
    1. day (as opposed to night)
    2. day (24 hour period)
      1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
      2. as a division of time
        1. a working day, a day's journey
    3. days, lifetime (plural)
    4. time, period (general)
    5. year
    6. temporal references
      1. today
      2. yesterday
      3. tomorrow

Origin: from an unused root meaning to be hot

TWOT entry: 852

Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

Strong's Definition: From an unused root meaning to be hot ; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + 



Original: לילה ליל ליל

Transliteration: layil lêyl layelâh

Phonetic: lah'-yil

BDB Definition:

  1. night
    1. night (as opposed to day)
    2. of gloom, protective shadow (figuratively)

Origin: from the same as H3883

TWOT entry: 1111

Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

Strong's Definition: From the same as H3883; properly a twist (away of the light), that is, night ; figuratively adversity: - ([mid-]) night (season).


Now if we look at day and night it starts to be hard to twist. The definitions literally mean day as opposed to night. And comes from the root word hot. Referring to the warmer hours of the day. And night as opposed to day. 


There is still some figurative language that can probably be twisted. So let's look at morning.



Original: בּקר

Transliteration: bôqer

Phonetic: bo'-ker

BDB Definition:

  1. morning, break of day
    1. morning
      1. of end of night
      2. of coming of daylight
      3. of coming of sunrise
      4. of beginning of day
      5. of bright joy after night of distress (figuratively)
    2. morrow, next day, next morning

Origin: from H1239

TWOT entry: 274c

Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

Strong's Definition: From H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: - (+) day, early, morning, morrow.


So let's face it. With all honesty this was written for and by people who did not understand basic earth science. This is a creation myth and nothing more. It is literally outlining a 24 hour period. Morning, day, and night. The writer is just trying to explain all the questions of how everything came to be without the knowledge we have today. In his description it took a literal six days to frame the earth and everything that exists. And of course if your God is all powerful and only has to speak things into existence then why not?


There are other flaws in my argument but I will bring this all out in segments. This is all I have time for, for now. Got kids to feed n all that good stuff. ? But there is more to come! 


Dark Bishop

  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd segment of reversal.


In my original OP I argued that intelligent design was obvious just by observing nature and how everything works together. Also I pointed out how there are many functions of earth's ecosystem that if they didn't exist then life would not be able to exist or would be greatly retarded. But we aren't arguing intelligent design, we are arguing the existence of the bibles God. So in this segment I want to focus on the first four days of God's creation in the bible and how it conflicts with the arguement in my OP.


Genesis 1

 1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. note

 5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. note

 6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. note

 7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 8  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 9  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 10  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.note

 12  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 13  And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:note

 15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. note

 17  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 18  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


In bible God's version of creation darkness and water is all there was in the beginning. He created the heavens, earth, and light. As we saw in the last segment according to Hebrew definitions it is clear that the author is conveying a 24 hour period. He described Morning, Day, and Night. He called the divisions of darkness and light "Day and night". Yet this is four days before the sun, moon, and stars were created. 


This complicates my assessment that he created everything to work together in harmony so that we could live. On the third day he creates grass and herb and everything that bares seed. This is still the day before the sun, moon, and stars are created. This would be an impossibility on my time frame. A day and night of millions of years would only serve to kill all plant life on earth. Without millions of years of algae and other plant life on earth, life ceases to exist. The author doesn't know that what he breaths in to sustain his life is provided by the plants of the earth. We know now that it is through photosythesis (which requires the suns rays) that plants produce oxygen. And as I said in my OP they only produce it during the day time while they are absorbing the suns rays. However if the author recognised that plants needed the sun to survive then it makes sense that the next 24 hour day would have to include the creation of the sun. But the author has already defined light and darkness as being day and night. He apparently doesn't realise that it is the sun that produces the light that pushes away the darkness. 


In my OP I tried to argue that the bible states the earth is a circle and that proved they knew it was spherical. As LogicalFallacy pointed out in the peanut gallery this arguement is very loose at best. I can prove this by pointing out something in the first 4 days of creation here. More precisely it was God's second day on the job.


 6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. note

 7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 8  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


If you will notice the "firmament" that God creates has water above and below it. This aligns with many other ancient beliefs at the time. They literally believed that there was water over the heavens, or over the firmament. We know for a fact that this is ridiculous. We have been to the moon, we have satellites in orbit around the planet. Hell I wouldn't be able to watch TV or GPS anything without satellites. We all know they are really there. Here is a link to a website that covers this subject more in depth. It is a study from the University of Idaho. This page gives us an illustration on what the earth was believed to have looked like.



This would also explain to an ancient culture without the knowledge we have today why the sky was blue. It was because gods light shined through the water. Why do I say it was God's light that shined through the water and not the light of the sun? Well that's easy. It had to be gods light that he created in the beginning that shown through the water above the firmament because on the fourth day God hung the moon, stars, and sun in the firmament of heaven according to the bible. If everyone will look at the illustration provided in the link above. We also see that this scripture is depicted in the illustration as the stars, moon, and sun are beneath the waters at the top of the firmament over the earth. 


I suggest everyone read the study in the link, it goes over how they also believed that the earth was held up by pillars which is also reflected in biblical scripture.

1 Sam 2:8

Job 9:6

Psalms 75:3


As LogicalFallacy said. When looking at the earth from a mountain top it would appear to be a circle. A literal disk. In the scripture I provided in Isaiah 40:22 it said.


"It is he that sitteth upon the Circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"


he has the heavens spread out as a tent to dwell in. Does anyone know what all tents have in come with one another? A flat bottom. It makes sense also that they likened the heavens as a tent for us because the ancient Canaanite God EL preferred to live in a tent according to ancient mythology. 


In the Ugaritic Ba‘al cycle, Ēl is introduced dwelling on (or in) Mount Lel (Lel possibly meaning "Night") at the fountains of the two rivers at the spring of the two deeps. He dwells in a tent according to some interpretations of the text which may explain why he had no temple in Ugarit. As to the rivers and the spring of the two deeps, these might refer to real streams, or to the mythological sources of the salt water ocean and the fresh water sources under the earth, or to the waters above the heavens and the waters beneath the earth.


Remnants of this belief carry over in the bible. When moses meets God for the first time it is on a mountain. God gives the law to moses on Mount Sinai. Afterward they build a tabernacle (tent) for God to dwell in the midst of his children (isreal). We will go more in depth about genesis' supposed author in the next segment.


As we can see I made a feeble attempt to twist scripture to suit my own personal interpretation, not unlike what we have been seeing lately with some of our christian new comers to Ex-C.  But when the apologetics are put under a bit more scrutiny then they tend to fall apart. In this segment I have made the counter arguement to my original OP that the God of the bible can not possibly be the creator even if there was intelligent design at play. The bibles version of creation is not even possible unless you want to believe in flat earth theory and set yourself back thousands of years.


1. We know that our earth is not a disk and it is not flat

2. We know that our atmosphere is not holding up a layer of water

3. We know that the moon, stars, and sun are not within our atmosphere and they are really not stationary or set in place in the firmament as the biblical creation suggests. But are traveling through space just as we are.

4. Our atmosphere is not a dome it is spherical just as the earth is spherical.

5. We can see how the biblical creation is written by someone who has absolutely no true knowledge of how earth's functions work.

6. We can also see how a more ancient Canaanite mythology and various other mythologies during this time period influenced the formation of thought behind the biblical creation mythology.

7. We have reiterated how the biblical creation is definitely divided into six 24 hour days and not a figurative time period.


This segment alone should be enough to prove that referencing creation as proof of the bibles God is not a sound argument. If their was intelligent design it obviously wasn't the bibles God, because what was created definitely isn't what is portrayed in the bible. But there is still at least one more segment to come. There are many holes in my original argument that need to be pointed out.


Dark Bishop 

  • Like 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Segment 3

The author


In this segment I want to attack the core of the issue. Instead of arguing my authority to interpret scripture, @L.B. should have been arguing authenticity of Genesis' author. As I and others have brought out in various threads across EXC the story of Moses just another part of the myth. According to the bible Moses was the author of the first five books of the bible known as the penteuch. Everyone who has read my testimony knows that this subject lead to my full deconversion. I was looking for evidence to show my son that the bible had proof through archeology. I had never looked up Archeological finds centered around the exodus before but at that point I had faith that modern science had probably uncovered proof of the exodus. I also knew that two million people would not be ableft to dwell anywhere without leaving a trail of artifacts in their wake. IE broken pots, dolls, arrows, tools, post holes where the tabernacle and tents were erected, etc etc etc. Areas where small tribes of Indians have been excavated in the US and all kinds of evidence of their existence have been uncovered. So I went into that endeavor in full assurance that I would be able to return to my son and show him my findings. To my dismay I not only didn't find evidence of the exodus, I also lost my faith completely.


Just because this is such a personal subject to me I would have used this arguement to disprove the existence of the biblical God. At the same time it disproves the authority of the first five books of the bible which everything thereafter including the story of Jesus base it's foundations on. I may have waited until my second thousand words arguement so the debate would last a little longer. I personally think this deals a major death blow to any credibility that one may give to the biblical account of anything. 


So let's get started. When I started my attempt to find proof of the biblical exodus the things I came across were very weak. Most came from theating efforts of Ron Wyatt who had no formal training as an archeologist. Such as the "wagon wheels" that he supposedly found while diving and the supposed stone pillar he found on the coast he claimed was the pillar set up by Solomon. Here is a very informative article that covers the lack of evidence for the exodus and the various apologetics that are used to defend it. It also briefly addresses Ron Wyatt's discoveries toward the end of the article. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus


Their are many websites that can be found saying basically the same thing. As this article and many others point out, true to the bibles nature, many of the cities that were mentioned concerning the exodus were found not to have existed during the time frame of exodus. 


Here is an article written by a handful of Jewish scholars in defense of the exodus. I came across this when I was searching which gave me hope until I read it.



In this article the author attempts to depict the exodus as a possible late coming group of isrealites (specifically the levites). He states that the smaller group of the Levites who worshipped Yahweh joined them and since the land was already decided up they were given the tithe and the duty of the temple as their inheritance. This caused a problem at the time because until that time the isrealites God was EL and the Levites God was Yahweh. But at some point they came to the conclusion that yahweh and EL were one and the same. 


If one digs deeper into ancient EL mythology we find that this conclusion was ridiculous. Apparently they didn't remember their own ancient mythologies or they would have realised that yahweh was El's son in some of them. As depicted in this article http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/1818445-evolution-yahweh-pagan-tribal-god-israel.html


But enough of El and his pantheon. They don't really pertain to this arguement I guess. The facts of the matter are that there is absolutely no evidence of a biblical exodus. The bible boasts that the first five books were written by non other than this mythical Moses himself. I argue that if the penteuch was supposedly written by Moses and Moses never existed that not only should the creation theory of the bible be stricken from the arguement but that the whole bible must be false as it is built on the foundation of the penteuch supposedly written by Moses. Therefore the Biblical God is indeed false as its foundations are false. There was no exodus and there was no Moses to write the creation theory and the books of the law. There for the authoritative power of Genesis and the other four books of the penteuch are null and void as they are a lie. Moses did not write the Law, the creation, or anything else. It was the authors known only as J, E, D, and P.


J- was the writer that brought in Yahweh as the name for the diety that isreal worshipped.


E- is the writer who referred to diety as EL or Elohim. If you will do some googling on ancient Canaanite beliefs you will find that the EL mythology will explain a lot of things in the old testament. EL was originally believed to be ruler over a whole pantheon of God's. You will remember some of the names of his children from your bible studies. I'll let you look it up. It's a very breathtaking read for a christian.


D- is the author of deuteronomy which was a book that was "found" during the reign of king Josiah. This book conveniently reflected all of the kings own personal beliefs which he then put into governmental law after it was read before the people.


P- lastly P was the priestly source that organized the Torah and added their own views which gave reason for why God turned his back on them and why the Temple had been destroyed. They had sinned against him therefore they were being punished. 



I mistakenly referred to D as H in "ask a christian" posted by @Bibler in the lions den. I am correcting that here and will edit it in my comment on his thread. Please read this whole thread Bibler it may just open your eyes a bit. 



If Moses did not exist and write the first five books of the bible then the whole bible must be false as all other books hinge on the penteuch.  Even certain prophecies of jesus' coming are included in these five books and supposedly fulfilled in the new testament. The bible God is not real and his "Holy" bible is a lie written by people who lived thousands of years ago. The bible is a shackle to control people's minds and nothing more.


I am a little tipsy now as I've been drinking so I will save the Cambrian explosion for another segment. 


More to come,

Dark Bishop


  • Like 5

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to interrupt the flow of this debate, but I want to let everyone know how much I'm enjoying it.  @DarkBishop So far, your discoveries regarding the Old Testament are identical to the discoveries I made.  I completely lost my faith in the Bible after learning about Documentary Hypothesis during an Old Testament History course I took in college a few years back.  My professor brought up everything you mentioned (and then some) including the mysterious authors, J, E, D, and P.  After taking his course, I came to the same realization as you.  If the first five books of the Bible have no real academic, archaeological, and historical credibility, then the rest of the Bible can be safely thrown in file 86.  


But even in saying that, there is also a metric ton of new archaeological discoveries that not only disprove the stories of other books in the Old Testament but also completely contradict them. For example, a statue of a Hebrew king bowing down and paying tribute to one of Israel's enemy kings was recently unearthed.  The Bible story regarding this event tells a completely different story.  It says that the enemy king in question bowed down and paid tribute to the Hebrew king.  Anyway, I don't remember the details of the find, but it was one of the discoveries that my professor brought up in class to show how some of the scriptures in the Old Testament were changed and modified for political purposes.  They basically cleaned up their history to make their god look all powerful, etc.  I'll try to find the discovery in question, and I'll post it here if you want me to.

  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, guys.  Here is a wikipedia article that describes the archaeological discovery I mentioned in my last comment.  It was not a statue but rather an obelisk that uses relief pictures to depict the events I described in my last post.  All the same, it's a really cool find, and it causes serious problems for the OT narrative as it regards the events that are depicted on it.  Basically, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III records an event that is not mentioned in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that King Jehu went before the king of Assyria to bow down and pay tribute to him.  (Was this embarrassment left out on purpose?)


 "It features twenty relief scenes, five on each side. They depict five different subdued kings, bringing tribute and prostrating before the Assyrian king. From top to bottom they are: (1) Sua of Gilzanu (in north-west Iran), (2) "Jehu of Bit Omri" (Jehu of the House of Omri), (3) an unnamed ruler of Musri (probably Egypt), (4) Marduk-apil-usur of Suhi (middle Euphrates, Syria and Iraq), and (5) Qalparunda of Patin (Antakya region of Turkey). Each scene occupies four panels around the monument and is described by a cuneiform script above them.

On the top and the bottom of the reliefs there is a long cuneiform inscription recording the annals of Shalmaneser III. It lists the military campaigns which the king and his commander-in-chief headed every year, until the thirty-first year of reign. Some features might suggest that the work had been commissioned by the commander-in-chief, Dayyan-Assur" (Wikipedia, 2017, par. 4-5).


Here is the description of King Jehu of Israel bowing before the Assyrian king that I found on bible-history.com, 

"1. It reveals how King Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser III.

2. King Jehu grovels in the dust before the Assyrian king.

3. Shalmaneser is making a libation to his god.

4. Behind Shalmaneser III stand two officers, one holds a parasol (a royal umbrella) and the other a club.

5. Opposite the monarch two grooms-in-waiting have taken up their stance, one waves a fan and a censer, the other, carrying a scepter under his arm, has his hands respectfully clasped in front of him.

6. There is a bearded officer with an attendant, leading a procession of 13 Israelites laden with precious gifts for the Assyrian king. 

7. All the Israelites have beards, and wear peaked caps and bandeaux. A long robe with fringes round the hem and a girdle, a long cloak with a fringed end thrown over the shoulder, and pointed shoes.

8. Shalmaneser beneath a parasol, accepts "the tribute of Iaua of the House of Humri" in 841 BC. This is King Jehu of Israel (2Ki 9-10).

9. The inscription reads: "The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king [and] spears."

10. The symbols of the gods Assur (winged sun disc) and Ishtar (star) hover overhead." (Bible History, 2016, par. 3).



Here is the link to the wiki article complete with descriptions and pictures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk_of_Shalmaneser_III

Here is the link to the bible history article: http://www.bible-history.com/black-obelisk/the-jehu-relief.html


I just thought you guys would find this interesting as it concerns the Old Testament narrative. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


    Yeah it doesn't surprise me that Archeological finds are pointing in very different directions than what the biblical accounts offer. Thanks for the links shin obi. ?



  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW everyone. I haven't forgotten about the last segment. I sited Stephen Myers book Darwins doubt in my original arguement on that point and honestly needed to read more of the book to see where he was going with the study to form my own counter arguement. It is going to be a long segment but I'm almost ready to put it together. I've had to delve into a few other theories revolving around the subject. Hopefully I will be able to set aside some time next week to type it up. 


Thanks for everyone's patience. I'm just trying to do a good job outlining my points. ?



  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew!!! This last segment has been a rough. I hope you all find this one as interesting as I did when studying.


Segment 4

The Cambrian Explosion


     I have had to devote a lot of time to this part of my reversal. I sited the work of Stephen C. Meyer in His book “Darwin’s Doubt”. The following is a brief summarization of what I read in the book. When I made the initial argument on the Cambrian explosion I did not yet know where Dr. Meyer was going with his train of thought. I also wanted to read more into his other arguments against other theories that supported Darwinian evolution during the Cambrian.

      As I was reading I realized that this guy really knows what he is talking about. He presented so much well founded evidence against darwin’s theory of evolution for this time period it was actually very convincing. The original weak link as pointed out by Darwin himself was the lack of fossil evidence to support the evolution of the various complicated species found in the Cambrian. He said that he hoped future discoveries would support his theory. But they didn’t. In fact it made it worse, as more sites were discovered more species were found adding to the problem.

      One of the more popular apologetics used was that the Pre-Cambrian fauna that were the ancestors of the various Cambrian organisms were probably soft bodied organisms. The thought was that they would have been less likely to have been fossilized. But then a site was discovered in China that contained the fossilized remains of soft bodied animals. Such as an early form of Jelly fish and sponges that were older than the organisms found in the Cambrian. Discoveries like this make his argument very solid that any ancestor to the Cambrian Fauna should be represented in these various sites around the world. But they aren’t represented. There were also a few pre-Cambrian species that scientist tried to point to that may have been ancestors. But as Meyer indicates, that while they may have outward similarities to a Cambrian animal. They lacked a similar internal structure that would have led to that specific Cambrian descendant.

      So I wanted to know what his theory was. After reading his arguments against Darwinian apologetics he began to talk about DNA, which he has written another book, which I intend to read eventually. But I skipped ahead a bit at this point so I could find out what direction he was going with the study. As I thought, he began introducing intelligent design into the scenario. I gave this some thought to a point. As it states on my profile I believe in something…… I just don’t know what. So I did play around with the idea of intelligent design, but with my de-conversion and all, intelligent design is a little farfetched for me. I won’t go into detail in this debate format on my personal beliefs. If anyone is a member of the Ex-Christian spirituality forum you can read my views there. I will say that I do not believe in any organized manmade faith or deity.

     When I began looking into other theories I came to the conclusion that “tunnel vision” is a handicap to the scientific community just as much as it is in the religious community. You may be saying…. Come on now Dark, Don’t give us a line of BS here. And I’m not. Let me explain. While I was searching for other possible solutions I found out that there is one theory that is both shunned by the scientific world as well as the religious. But in my mind it is just as possible as any other theory. For various reasons such as personal beliefs, scientific reputation, and funding various theories aren’t studied as in depth as others. Some scientists are so fixed on one frame of mind that they won’t delve into other possibilities but instead work diligently trying to make the popular, well-funded, and more scientifically acceptable theory fit. Even when evidence isn’t really supporting it like it should. The parallels with this type of thought are almost exactly the same as those of Christian apologetics, such as I exhibited in the first sections of my argument against LB.

     I thought of something at this point but I didn’t yet know that it already had a name. And that it has circled around in various forms in the scientific community for quite some time. I remembered watching a video of the survival capabilities of a tardigrade. This organism can be frozen to -458 degrees, heated up to over 300 degrees, survive being radiated, put under extreme pressures, and has even been tested in the vacuum of space exposed in orbit around earth for ten days.

     Here is a quote from an article I found in popular mechanics:

“In its desiccated state, the tardigrade is ridiculously, almost absurdly resilient. Laboratory tests have shown that tardigrades can endure both an utter vacuum and intense pressures more than five times as punishing as those in the deepest ocean. Even temperatures up to 300 degrees Fahrenheit and as low as -458 degrees F (just above absolute zero) won't spell the creature's doom.”

     So after reading Stephen Meyers study I also found out that these little guys also appeared during the Cambrian explosion 530 Million years ago. At this point I’m thinking about the tardigrade and all these species that just seemed to have sprang into existence. My critical thinking questions are beginning to come. Why do most of these animals have hard exoskeletons when there were not predators to attack them? Why does the tardigrade exhibit all these various survival capabilities? This also led me to wonder if the other Cambrian phyla had similar survival capabilities. Why did they suddenly appear like they did? And in my mind the evidence is pointing to the possibility that they did not come from earth. But this is where science starts to shut this train of thought down. I googled what I was thinking and found out it had a name, “Panspermia”. But even in the popular mechanics article that I posted they dismiss the notion that the tardigrade could be extraterrestrial. I will give you the link now so you can see for yourself. But here is a quote: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a11137/secrets-of-the-water-bear-the-only-animal-that-can-survive-in-space-17069978/


“Although (as far as we know) tardigrades are unique in their ability to survive in space, Miller insists that there is no reason to believe they evolved for this reason or—as a misleading VICE documentary has implied—that they are of extraterrestrial origin. Rather, the tardigrade's space-surviving ability is the result of a strange response they've evolved to overcome an earthly life-threatening problem: a water shortage.”


     But he doesn’t give any reason why their evolution somewhere else couldn’t be a possibility other than there is no reason to think that they are extraterrestrial………. Eh…… after reading Stephen Meyers book. Well this prospect doesn’t seem too unreasonable to me at all. There really aren’t a lot of good new articles to look up concerning modern theories of Panspermia. But I found this one that reflects my thoughts on the most probable theory.


     This article is very interesting to me as it points out what I read in another article about the heavy bombardment period just before the Cambrian and also brings up the various strands of bacteria that can also survive extreme conditions and then goes on to point out that studies have shown that bacteria spores can possibly remain viable for up to 250 million years. Indicating that while the bacteria itself may die do to extreme conditions. The spores they produce may produce more bacteria when introduced back into a hospitable environment.

     I want to take this another step further to point out another study that I found concerning fertilized human embryos.





These articles state that human embryos (fertilized human eggs) can in theory be frozen indefinitely. Thawed, placed into a mother’s womb, and give birth to a healthy baby.

     This article absolutely amazed me. And made me wonder why scientists shoot down the idea of panspermia so easily. My thoughts are that if a human embryo can survive decades or longer having been frozen the right way. And considering our own fragile nature as compared to other animals. Why couldn’t embryos from animals such as the Tardigrade with such extreme survival capabilities travel through space in a frozen block of ice, splash down to earth, and be allowed to finish the process of life? I think that the biggest problem facing the theory of panspermia is outlined well in the last paragraph of the article in the Helix.Northwestern link above.

“An important thing to note about the panspermia hypothesis is that it gives no explanation for how life that arrived on Earth came to be. Even if we are able to show that life on Earth was a result of panspermia, the question of where and how life originated will be a lot harder to answer. So far our knowledge of the solar system suggests that life is unique to Earth, but, as science and technology advance, we will have to modify ideas that we currently regard as facts. It remains to be seen if the questions regarding the origin of life on Earth and the origin of life in the universe have the same answer”

If Panspermia was proven to be the most plausible explanation of life’s beginnings on earth, then we would be left with so many unanswered questions which we would never be able to find answers for. The questions of where and how would most likely never be able to be answered. According to the popular theory of the “big bang” our universe has been traveling through space for 12-13 billion years. Who knows what our solar system may have come in contact with during that time frame?  What if at some point in time we passed through another solar system. If the earth is only 4.5 billion years old then would it not be within the realm of possibility that a much older life bearing planet could have been struck by some other planet or moon? Sending debris throughout space? Instantly freezing any life that may have existed on it? Also there is no way for us to know the conditions on the planet that evolving life would have had to adapt to. What if it was at both extremes of the sweet spot of life that NASA looks for in other planetary systems? What if it orbited the sun in an oblong pattern? Going from extremely hot to extremely cold conditions? What would life on that planet be like???? Hell what if it was a planet orbiting our own sun in that pattern and collided with our early earth. What if it was a small planet and this event is what made our moon? What if after 530 million years of evolution on earth the tardigrades survival capabilities pale in comparison to what it originally was?

     The bottom line is there is no way to know for sure, at this point in time, exactly what happened to create such a burst in life on our planet. Scientists don’t want to delve into the theory of panspermia because it would leave to many unanswered questions. It also isn’t a popular theory that gernerates large funds. Creationists don’t want to delve into any scientific theory that doesn’t involve intelligent design. But when one opens their mind up to the various possibilities then there could be a number of events that have taken place over the past 12-13 billion years that we will never find proof of, that could have seeded life on this planet. During this time I have even thought about the possibility that it may have not been a “BIG” bang. But just a bang. What if there were other bangs, which created other universes, spreading out in other directions which we may have passed through billions of years ago. Those universes may be forever lost. Our ability to see them passing before life even began on earth.

     We know so much but there is the possibility that so much more can still be discovered. I am no scientist, and have not studied earth’s evolution all my life. I claim no field of expertise other than being an electrician by trade and having an ability to think outside the box. But in my opinion the evidence in the fossil record point strongly to the possibility of Panspermia.

     You may ask me now, “If Panspermia is a possibility for early life on earth because of the Cambrian Fauna’s unexplained origins, why couldn’t intelligent design also be a possibility?” To that I would have to answer that even before the Cambrian explosion, life was beginning to form on our planet. Basic single celled bacteria, worms, sponges, and early Jelly fish like organisms. Considering this, even if Panspermia is the culprit behind the Cambrian explosion, it stands to reason that life would have continued to evolve on earth from those original basic lifeforms. But life would definitely be drastically different here on earth. What I see during the Cambrian explosion is a jump start or a boost, if you will. Other than this one event in the fossil record they have solid proof that Darwin’s Theory of evolution stands on firm ground. And if Evolution is true (which it is, even in our own species) then the bibles God definitely wasn’t the one that initiated life on earth. The biblical account paints a much different picture. But I am sure there are Christian apologists scrambling now, trying to figure out how to reinterpret the bible to show that Stephen Meyer’s study somehow proves the authority of scripture. I really don’t know how they would do that. But they probably are.

     I think it would also be good to point out that, after those lifeforms appeared, they started making adaptive changes fairly quickly. Their evolutionary tree branching off into different forms of the same phyla. I think this also give credit to the possibility that earth was very different than what they were used to.

Well this last segment has almost as many words as my original proposal and my rebuttal combined. I hope that this series of reversals lay to rest the possibility of the bible God having created life on earth. The bible is a flawed book filled with deceit, myth, lies, mind games, and fear tactics. It was created to control people. And I hope that I have now done my part in proving that.

 Best Regards,

 Dark Bishop

  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. The bottom line here is that the bible offers one of the worst descriptions of the origins of the universe and life, period. I say one of the worst because it stands in line with every other cultural mythology which does not in any way describe real origins. So we all face a situation, whether everyone is aware of it or not, where scientific advancement and discovery is the only way we can ever hope to gather information and know anything at all about real origins. The fact that it's not completely figured out in no way lends credibility to religious explanations, which aren't even real explanations to begin with. 


This is what christians, fence sitters, newly ex-christians and old and experienced ex-christians all face when it comes to the role of science in the world and the mystery of origins. 


This is very firm. If anyone thinks otherwise, kindly take your best shot at trying to change these facts. 


You'll loose every time. 


And hopefully, you'll learn from the losses. 


This is ultimately about sharpening up thinking skills and knowing how to address apologetic suggestions with swift and tactical prowess. 


Thank you DB for your efforts. 

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading @Citsongas "letter to parents" which he wrote to explain the reasons behind his deconversion to his parents. I want to add this excerpt from his writing because it contains a valid point against the arguement I was trying to make when debating LB. 


"Another common Christian response is to bring up the quote, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Thus, it is argued, nobody has an excuse for not knowing, because "the creation" around us is proof. But is it really? If this verse was true and the natural world we see clearly depicted the Christian God, then everyone who looks at nature would automatically be convinced of the Christian God! Yet, throughout the world there are varying cultures with different religious views, and many of those people look at the exact same nature and see evidence of their gods! And other people look at nature and see no evidence of any god at all! How could this be if "creation" was so clear regarding the Christian God? Obviously, this argument from "creation" is simply false.
    Think about this. You were raised in a Christian culture that convinced you that Christianity is true, but in the same way people raised in a Muslim culture are convinced that Islam is true, and people raised in a Hindu culture are convinced that Hinduism is true, and so on and so forth. The fact is that people's religious beliefs are primarily dependent upon demographics instead of logic, reason and indisputable evidence.
    You cannot believe Islam to be true because you were programmed to believe Christianity. But the opposite is also true: Those who are programmed to believe Islam simply cannot believe Christianity. Put yourself in their shoes. What if you had been raised and indoctrinated with Islam, and therefore you could not believe Christianity? That would be no fault of your own, it would simply be the result of being raised in that culture. Would it then be fair to torture you in "Hell" forever and ever and ever, with no mercy and no relief, simply because you did not believe something that you had no ability to believe? Do you not see the absurdity and injustice in that? Do you really believe that a righteous, loving God would do that to his creation?"


After reading this I felt that I wouldn't be doing this thread justice without including it for anyone who might read through this thread.



  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now