The Word Of God Must Come Directly From God To Be Firmly Established...

» Home » The Unknown

The Word Of God Must Come Directly From God To Be Firmly Established As Fact.

I think for example: The Jews say that the word of God was given to Moses face to face; the Christians say that their word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say their word of God, (the Koran), was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of these churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part I disbelieve them all. Revelation however, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately and directly to you via God. No one can possibly refute or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication.

LordDaniel

03 Apr 2009 17:17

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

AndyQTPham

05 Apr 2009 12:17

4 Comments

That about sums the debate up AndyTPham... Thanks for making the motion plain and obviously to all concerned, however, it seems like JSG has had some difficulty in understanding plain old English...;-)

LordDaniel

05 Apr 2009 13:07

Comment

"The Word of God became flesh and dwelt among and we beheld His glory the gory of the Father". (quote: Jesus Christ/ New Testament).

Jesus WAS out of "The Horse's Mouth".

jalapenos

05 Apr 2009 02:20

16 Comments

That;s a very good point jalapenos. However, as I have already demonstrated in this debate, even Jesus' words were portrayed by second hand hearsay. If Jesus would have wanted to form a new religion he would have written the book himself, would he not?...;-)

LordDaniel

05 Apr 2009 10:55

Comment

OK...so again...as with every topic you discuss...you start talking as if you know something,  then when asked to provide reference...you fold.

Other than what I said about the Canaanites...it's not difficult to get translations of Biblical scriptures which are quite literal so what you are referring to will have to be before the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

Another important feature of YLT is its treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. These two words have basically the same meaning, and YLT translates them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternity (eternal, everlasting, forever, etc). However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.[6] Proponents of Universal Reconciliation point out that this has significant implications for the problem of hell[7]. Contrast Matthew 25:46 in well-known English translations with its rendering in YLT:

And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during. (YLT) [8]

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (NIV) [9]

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (NASB) [10]

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. (KJV) [11]

Fun and games for our resident literature specialist.

I'm still waiting for some fact about the word of God from you.

It seems as what you're not saying (you don't ever say much of anything) but itching to say is that you don't think anyone can know the word of God. That's what you should be saying and then applying to yourself.

Comment

If it is the word of God, then duh, it might as well have come from God. But you now need to figure out who is not lying when saying their book is the word of God. And you need to see what word of God means.
Is it a promise, as in 'I will give you my word' ?
Is it a list of rules?
Is it anything that simply departs from his mouth?

And how could God's words merely be a fact if God were to claim himself as Truth?

These are the questions I am pitched with concerning your debate.
The Bible is always in question. But spanning over a few thousand years, the bible is a compilation of I think over 40 authors. And The Koran was supposedly the only person who wrote an account vs. The Bible's 40. (Not that I am trying to thrash the Koran but people asked me and now I ask you (rhetorical), would you rather believe many people or just the one? Typically people choose the majority. And since the Bible's compilation is built fundamentally on Jesus's death, the Bible loses if not all, most credibility if Jesus wasn't the foundation of the Bible.

gottfried

03 Apr 2009 22:41

13 Comments

In answer to your question gottfried obviously a first hand account would be more feasible than many many accounts passed down over the centuries. As you have pointed out If you examined the bible you can clearly establish that it is not entitled to be credited as the word of God. It can readily be proved that the first five books of the Bible, attributed to Moses, were not written by him nor were they written in his time, but several hundred years afterwards. Moses could not have described his own death, nor mentioned that he was buried in a valley in the land of Moab.

Similarly, the book of Joshua was not written by Joshua; it is manifest that Joshua could not write that Israel served the Lord not only in his days, but in the days of the elders that over-lived him.

The book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it.

The books of Samual were not written by Samual, for they relate to many things that did not happen till after his death.

The History in the two books of Kings, which is a little more than a history of assassinations, treachery and war, sometimes contradicts itself; and several of the most extraordinary matters related in Kings are not mentioned in the companion books of Chronicles.

The book of job has no internal evidence of even being a Hebrew book; it appears to have been translated from another language.

LordDaniel

04 Apr 2009 11:26

Comment

Similarly, the book of Joshua was not written by Joshua; it is manifest that Joshua could not write that Israel served the Lord not only in his days, but in the days of the elders that over-lived him.

The book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it.

The books of Samual were not written by Samual, for they relate to many things that did not happen till after his death.

The History in the two books of Kings, which is a little more than a history of assassinations, treachery and war, sometimes contradicts itself; and several of the most extraordinary matters related in Kings are not mentioned in the companion books of Chronicles.

The book of job has no internal evidence of even being a Hebrew book; it appears to have been translated from another language.

Comment

The book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it.

The books of Samual were not written by Samual, for they relate to many things that did not happen till after his death.

The book of job has no internal evidence of even being a Hebrew book; it appears to have been translated from another language.

Comment

If you go now to the New Testament. Had it been the object of Jesus Christ to establish a new religion, he would undoubtedly have written the system himself, or procured it to have been written in his lifetime. But there is no publication extant authenticated with his name. All books called the new testament were written after his death.

The first four books- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are all together anecdotal. They relate to events long after they had taken place; and in several instances they relate the same event differently.

The books of Acts of the Apostles belongs also to the anecdotal part. All the rest of the first testament, except the book of enigmas called Revelations, is a collection of letters or forgery of letters under the name of epistles.

One thing however, is certain, which is out of the matters contained in these books, together with the assistance of some old stories, the Church has set up a system of religion very contradictory to the character of the person whose name it bears. It has set up a religion of pomp and reverence in pretended imitation of a Person whose life was humility and poverty.

Comment

Get back in your box JSG, I will address you there. Gottfried has raised some very valid points, which add knowledge to this debate. Give Gottfried the benefit of the doubt in replying in his own time.

Ps. Gottfried, ''The Koran,'' is the holy scripture of more than hundreds of millions of men, and is the least original of all existing sacred books. Mohomedans agree that it is from the beginning to end, word for word inspired; and that it existed before the creation on what is called the 'Preserved Tablet.' This tablet as I have stated in my debate motion was brought by the Archangel Gabriel from the highest to the lowest heaven, whence it was dictated sura (chapter), by sura, verse by verse, and word by word, to the prophet Mahomet. However, its matter is strangely taken for most part from the Old Testament, especially the narrative portions of the Pentateuch, and from the New Testament, and strangely enough is built upon from the traditions of the ancient Arabs. And, also from Zoroastrian and other scriptures or traditions. Sadly, all this confirms again that it is the word of man, rather than the word of ''God.''

Comment

Any phony or nut can claim God spoke directly to them and gave certain orders everyone must follow. It's your choice whether to believe them or not. This does indeed confirm your debate heading - that "The word of God must come directly from God to be established as fact". Everything else is just he said she said.

Grenache

03 Apr 2009 21:24

9 Comments

Quite correct, hearsay or heresy. Anyone professing the word of ''God,'' without actually having heard ''God's Word,'' direct is an heretic in my humble opinion.

I think religion has lost the plot Grenache my learned friend. The theology that is now studied by all religions, is basically the study of human opinions, and human fancies concerning ''God.'' It is not the study of ''God,'' concerning the design of the whole of creation. But it is the works, and writings that man has made, and it is not among the least of mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world by now abandoning the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition. The prejudice of unfounded man made belief degenerates into the true predudice of custom, and has become the last rank hypocrisy. When educated men from custom, or fashion, or any wordly motive, profess or pretend to believe what they do not truly believe in the first instance, nor can give any sound reasoning for believing, this fact unships the helm of morality, and, being no longer honest in their own minds, they feel no moral difficulty in being unjust to others. It is from the influence of this vice, hypocrisy, that we see so many church and meeting going professors, and pretenders to religion so full of tricks and deceit in their dealings, and so loose in the performance of their engagements that they should not be trusted further than the laws of their country can bind them, preferably in prison...;-)

LordDaniel

04 Apr 2009 19:08

Comment

Quite correct, hearsay or heresy. Anyone professing the word of ''God,'' without actually having heard ''God's Word,'' direct is an heretic in my humble opinion.

I think religion has lost the plot Grenache my learned friend. The theology that is now studied by all religions, is basically the study of human opinions, and human fancies concerning ''God.'' It is not the study of ''God,'' concerning the design of the whole of creation. But it is the works, and writings that man has made, and it is not among the least of mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world by now abandoning the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition. The prejudice of unfounded man made belief degenerates into the true predudice of custom, and has become the last rank hypocrisy. When educated men from custom, or fashion, or any wordly motive, profess or pretend to believe what they do not truly believe in the first instance, nor can give any sound reasoning for believing, this fact unships the helm of morality, and, being no longer honest in their own minds, they feel no moral difficulty in being unjust to others. It is from the influence of this vice, hypocrisy, that we see so many church and meeting going professors, and pretenders to religion so full of tricks and deceit in their dealings, and so loose in the performance of their engagements that they should not be trusted further than the laws of their country can bind them, preferably in prison...;-)

Comment

Quite correct, hearsay or heresy. Anyone professing the word of ''God,'' without actually having heard ''God's Word,'' direct is an heretic in my humble opinion.

Comment

I swear, nearly every topic here is about either God or stereotypes. Oh well. Obviously this side is correct. It is common sense.

Amatsu

03 Apr 2009 19:19

1 Comment

Good to see someone on this site with a bit of common sense....;-)

LordDaniel

04 Apr 2009 18:40

Comment

One one person tells it directly to a second person, and a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to that person only. It is a revelation only to the first person, and hearsay to everybody else; and consequently they are not obliged to believe it, simply because they have only the word of the first person that it was made to him\her. That which is a revelation to me exists in something which no human mind can invent, no human hand can counterfeit or alter. Therefore I would strongly suggest that the word of God is the creation we behold. Hence the word of God is this creation which is necessary for us to know our creator.

(1) Can we contemplate God's power?
We can clearly see it in the immensity of God's creation.

(2) Can we contemplate God's wisdom?
We see it in the interchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed.

(3) Can we contemplate God's munificence?
We can clearly see it in the abundance of life in which multiplies upon our planet.

(4) Can we contemplate God's mercy?
We can clearly see it in God not withholding that abundance of nature even from the unthankful.

(5) Can we contemplate God's will, so far as it respects us?
The goodness God shows is to all a lesson for our conduct to each other.

If you really want evidence of God, don't search the aforemention religions, which any human hand may of constructed, but search the scripture called creation...;-)

LordDaniel

03 Apr 2009 17:36

11 Comments

(1) Can we contemplate God's power?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We can clearly see it in the immensity of God's creation.
No. The creation you speak of is not immense.

(2) Can we contemplate God's wisdom?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We see it in the interchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed.
No. We can see it in eternity. The "whole" you speak of is not eternal.

(3) Can we contemplate God's munificence?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We can clearly see it in the abundance of life in which multiplies upon our planet.
No. For every "abundance" of life there is "abundance" of death.

(4) Can we contemplate God's mercy?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We can clearly see it in God not withholding that abundance of nature even from the unthankful.
There are plenty of people from which the "abundance" of nature has been withheld.

(5) Can we contemplate God's will, so far as it respects us?
Yes. We can comtemplate anything.
The goodness God shows is to all a lesson for our conduct to each other.
Yes, but I seriously doubt your example of God's goodness will be a valid answer if your "contemplating" up to this point has anything to do with it.

If you really want evidence of God search your self and the links yourself has to eternity.

justsumguy

04 Apr 2009 15:04

Comment

(1) Can we contemplate God's power?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We can clearly see it in the immensity of God's creation.
No. The creation you speak of is not immense.

(2) Can we contemplate God's wisdom?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We see it in the interchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed.
No. We can see it in eternity. The "whole" you speak of is not eternal.

(3) Can we contemplate God's munificence?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We can clearly see it in the abundance of life in which multiplies upon our planet.
No. For every "abundance" of life there is "abundance" of death.

(4) Can we contemplate God's mercy?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We can clearly see it in God not withholding that abundance of nature even from the unthankful.
There are plenty of people from which the "abundance" of nature has been withheld.

(5) Can we contemplate God's will, so far as it respects us?
Yes. We can comtemplate anything.
The goodness God shows is to all a lesson for our conduct to each other.
Yes, but I seriously doubt your example of God's goodness will be a valid answer if your "contemplating" up to this point has anything to do with it.

If you really want evidence of God search your self and the links yourself has to eternity.

Comment

(1) Can we contemplate God's power?
Yes. We can contemplate anything.
We can clearly see it in the immensity of God's creation.
No. The creation you speak of is not immense.

If you really want evidence of God search your self and the links yourself has to eternity.

Comment

Not of fans of he said she said. Especially when it's the hearsay of God. Little details get lost in translation.

Specter87

03 Apr 2009 17:33

Add a Comment

I agree. Only when i see god for myself will i truly believe. Until then i couldn't care less xD

GordxX

03 Apr 2009 17:27

Add a Comment

I don't think gods word can be established as fact for there is no evidence he exists and for something to be considered fact there must be very strong evidence to back it up

Kieran758

04 Apr 2009 11:10

10 Comments

If the word of God came directly to you Kieran758 from God's own lips as the motion of this debate suggests, are you suggesting that you would still not believe it to be fact?

LordDaniel

04 Apr 2009 11:51

Comment

That is if god exists. What the hell Daniel?! - Turks say their word of God, (the Koran) - you stereotyping fundamentalist *******!

Balance_92

03 Apr 2009 20:41

1 Comment

May I direct your attention to the reply I gave to Kieran758 above.

LordDaniel

04 Apr 2009 11:54

Comment

God gave his work to man to give to everyone

shipp

03 Apr 2009 18:07

2 Comments

Could you possibly elaborate shipp old bean? Your response seems a little sexist at the moment, and sounds like God gave his work to man, to give to woman, (everyone else). Please also note that this debate is about the word of God, or have you misinterpreted the motion?

LordDaniel

03 Apr 2009 18:11

Comment

Nope. Unless the God spoke to everyone at the same time and said the exact same thing, it would always come down to one persons word against another.

Speaking of God's word as some sort of human fact is goofy.

justsumguy

03 Apr 2009 17:30

16 Comments

So are you directly saying that the word of God doesn't come from God? I think you have voted on the wrong side JSG...;-) Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, whato, old boy? Goofy, Xd, OMG, ha ha ha, you must be so _ _ _ _ _ _ \ _ _ _....;-)

LordDaniel

03 Apr 2009 17:40

Comment

The whole point of debate JSG is to argue For or Against the Motion, and by doing so, add a wealth of knowledge to the debate. I'm not sure if you are still stunned after Cephus clobbered you over the head with that brick, (very witty I thought), or whether you have lost all sense of direction, because your responses and comments are growing more and more rediculous as time goes by. And, have no bearing upon the actual motion up for debate. The debate motion is extremely simple, and is not a trick question. Basically it is would you believe the word of ''GOD,'' if it came directly from ''GOD?'' Or, would you believe the word of ''GOD,'' if it was delivered second, third, fourth, fifth hand by any human being you encountered in life? By voting on this side you are openly agreeing with the latter, and therefore putting yourself up for all kinds of redicule. My argument on the For side is sound and is within the realms of all analogical reasoning. However, you have adopted an extremely weak position. Before we continue or exchange points of argument firstly let me clear up another one of your threads you seem so confident of professing. And, by doing so you sound to me like one of those preachers who offers salvation in preaching that one only has to believe. And, that you insist on telling everyone that you encounter, in great detail. That is, if you believe in Jesus Christ their sins will be forgiven. This in my opinion is an encouragement to sin; in the second place the doctrine that you preach cannot be true. Nothing that you have said on this site can apply, with the distant most respect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. For the first instance Jesus was a virtuous and amiable man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind, and, though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and, by some of the Greek philosophers many years before, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any. Let alone Just Some Guy!...;-)

Comment

Give me an example of my preaching on this site.

Ohhhhhh...you mean me attacking the self-righteous. I don't need God to speak to me to attack religious bigots. I use THEIR beliefs against them.

I don't need God to speak to me to put down Cephus. I use what Cephus thinks about Cephus.

You're welcome to find where I say anyone needs to do anything on this site, let alone me giving God speaking to me as a basis for knowing what someone else needs to do.

I'll save you the trouble. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your understanding and love thy neighbor as thyself.

There's my preaching you ignorant twerp.

Now you may think me calling you an ignorant twerp means I don't love you. Much the same as the sewage which spews from your being when talking about homosexuals. Of course, that's a stupid analogy.

You talking about Gods word is sick.
But hey...unlike the way you think of others, I think you're forgiven and I don't think there's one little itsy bitsy thing you can do to bring down eternal perfect.

Have at it.

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

13 minutes ago

The language censor on this site is a joke. It forbids the most harmless words. Yet, people can use the most insulting,... read more...

1 hour ago

Thats so true just let them go they will find someone else who will replace you so who cares if they let you go or if you... read more...

1 hour ago

I used to but i dont do it anymore cuz i got braces so it hurt every time i would but yea i miss biting them.. read more...

1 hour ago

NAACP always blows things out of proportion read more...

1 hour ago

You're hardly the worst anyway, death threats don't need swear words to be worse than anything you've ever said. read more...

Related Debates

	Chupacabras Is Real
	No One Can Control Time, No One Has Ever Controlled Time And No One Will Ever Be Able To Control Tim...
	Christians Are Typically Religiously Lazy
	Catholicism Has Some Good Qualities Even If One Is Not Catholic:
	The Power Of Man Has Replaced The Power Of God.
	Fortune Tellers And Mediums Fall Foul Of Trade Descriptions. This Is Fair.
	Adam Should Be Included In Saw 6 - Even Tho He Died
	God Has Been Lost Because Of Our Attempts As Theists To Protect Something Which Can't Be Defended Or...
	God (being The Concept) Made The Big Bang Happen But Created The Earth Separately As Stated In The Scripture...
	Atheists Hate God Because 90% Of Them Are Gay

New Debates

	Is Halloween Better Then Christmas?
	They Should Relax The Language Censor A Bit.
	A Little Bit Of Flooding In England Shouldn't Be Called "flooding Of Biblical Proportions"
	H1N1: A Real Mystery
	Edward (vampire) Is Better Than Jacob (wolf)!! TWILIGHT!!
	There Is Nothing Remotely Attractive About Johnny Depp.
	There Will Never Be World Peace
	Degrassi Is A Good Show!!
	We Should Not Be Required To Learn Spanish In School.
	Islam Is Inherently More Pernicious Than Christianity