hey man dont let the bible stray your beliefs away .. yes the bible was written by a dark fallen angel they view as the devil ... but it was made to confuse us the first proof is the originall text being written in greek ... how when we new what the greeks believed ... the bibel is bull .... read my post reply on "evidence of god" .... the creator has broken its energy up into many forms of life .. you are one of them .. a god .... gods are the breakdown of the creator's spirit into an infinite amount of spirits and life.... its in you .. or all of us .. we are truelly all one ....

if that is the best real evidence that is available then i will have to remain to be a non believer in god and religion.
you take quotes from the bible to prove that it is a books full of facts on how the world works , unfortunately you do not give any credit to the authors of the bible ... i am sure that they were not dumb people , in fact they were probably extremely clever and had quite a few original ideas themselves how the world worked.
one thing is still unproven to me by your real evidence .... is the bible a literary work of fact or fiction , most likely in my mind is that it is a collection of stories that have been exaggerated over a period time.
the only one thing that religion has brought to this world is death caused by the numerous wars between deffierent religious factions.

ON CREATIONISM

By Creationism, I mean the literal belief the interpretation of the creation of the world as found in the book of Genesis and the story of the succession of the human race from Adam and Eve.

There is already a problem. There are in fact two creation stories found side-by-side in the book of Genesis (Gn 1-2:4a, Gn 2:4b-14). The first one, in which God creates the universe in six days and rests on the seventh, explains man coming as the final creation of God. The second story, which includes the creation of Eden, is a very short story, but a very controversial one to itself (more on that later). It is from this second story that the story of Adam and Eve arises. The first story reads as if many humans were created all at once, whereas the second story mentions only Adam and Eve.

2:4 created.

It is often said that Gen. 2:4-25 is a second account of creation differing from that in Gen. 1:1-2:3. In point of fact, however, Gen. 1 tells of the creation of the whole universe, including man and woman; while Gen. 2 specifically describes the origin of man and woman without repeating the story of creation recorded in Gen. 1. Thus Gen. 2 says nothing of the creation of light, of the separation of the waters, or of the formation of sun, moon, and stars. Nor does it actually describe the creation of vegetation or of animals.

Genesis 2:8 is sometimes erroneously interpreted as describing the creation of vegetation, but it only mentions the planting of a particular garden. Verse 19, often misinterpreted as another description of the creation of animals coming after rather than before the creation of man, actually refers back to the creation of the animals that were brought before Adam. To think that the planting of the garden described in v. 8 was not done until after man had been formed, as stated in v. 7, is unnecessary. In both cases (the "planting" of the garden and the "forming" of the animals) the Hebrew verb could be more correctly translated by the English "had planted" and "had formed."

But let's abandon discrepencies thus far and continue on, for there is more flawed logic in a literal translation afoot. Let's assume that God created the world as stated in the first creation story, except for the part where He creates humans, wherein we'll believe the second one (cut & paste Bible interpretations... hehe). So we have Adam and Eve, who finally eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree and are exiled from Eden into the land where they are no longer able to comprehend the animals, production results only from manual labour, the woman must bear the pain of childbirth, etc. They have two sons, Cain and Abel. Abel seems to be a meticulous young man and has a very good relationship with God, because he offers the best of his crop as an oblation to Him. Cain gets jealous of Abel because God seems to favour him (Cain apparently hadn't been offering the same level of oblations/sacrifices as his brother). So he decides to off him.

And hence we have reached the end of the human race as we know it. If we are indeed to believe that God created the entirety of the human race in Adam and Eve, then we're screwed. Adam and Eve have probably been alive some four hundred years now (Genesis mentions astronomical lifespans), and now one of their only two sons has died. The human population consists of three people: Adam, Eve, and Cain. The Bible only mentions one more child from Adam ("Seth" in Gn 5:3). However, this doesn't solve the problem; the problem, you see, is a lack of females. Neither surviving son is mentioned in the Bible showing Eve their manly chuztpah. So in theory, we don't actually exist.

Yet somehow we do. The Bible also mentions Cain having relations with his wife (Gn 4:17a); where did she come from? Then I guess we have to assume that both creation stories are completely true. There is a problem with this, as mentioned earlier—there are discrepencies. One story (the first) mentions the creation of beasts and animals, and the other (the second) does not. There is a verse, however, that causes even more controversy. "... while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the Lord God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil..." (Gn 2:5). The italicised is the problem—tilling the soil. Man did not do manual labour (according to the Bible) until he was banished from Eden. However, God (whom, translating literally, many believe wrote, or at least dictated, the Bible) mentions the soil as something that is going to be inevitably tilled; that the soil's sole purpose is to be worked by the hands of mankind. If God indeed wrote the Bible, he has little faith in humans.

ON RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCES

If God indeed wrote the Bible. Believing that God Himself wrote the Bible leads to a literal interpretation of the Bible, for God is believed to be infallible—why would one interpret any way other than literally if He wrote it? However, we can clearly see the contradictions in the Bible, and we have only explored so far as the first five chapters of Genesis! I cannot list all the contradictions, there are so many. This means in no way that the Bible is wrong, however. It just means that a literal approach is not the best way. The Bible is a holy work of literature; it has themes, metaphors, and figurative language like any other work. Proper interpretation is the result of analysing all the above.

For instance, what is the true message of the creation stories? A recurring verse in the first creation story is "And He saw it was good." This means that creation is inherantly benevolent. The crimes of Cain and the subsequent forgiveness from God show the mercy of God and the imperfection of humanity, which struggles to serve Him. All of these inferences are perfectly compatible in both creation stories and throughout the Bible, as well as with the Theory of Evolution.

A contextual interpretation of the Bible means that God inspired the writings found in the Bible. But God did not come down with His almighty Ticonderoga and inscribe the Bible into stone tablets. That's a whole lot of stone, a whole lot of pencil, and a whole lot of date discrepency to account for. The writings found in the Bible are spaced so far apart in respect to their writing chronologically that it suggests many different people wrote the Bible. Carbon-dating of the individual scrolls, a thorough analysis of the Hebrew in which the stories were written, and other methods have found the two creation stories found in Genesis are at least two or three hundred years apart. If God wrote it, why wouldn't he do it all at once? God has no bathroom breaks.

Overall, contextual interpretations of Bible stories can be far more wholesome and less erroneous in relating to other sources of knowledge than literal interpretations. Literal interpretations are very narrow in application; they are full of absolutes, which results in a massive population of infidels. When enemy cultures and religions with these strict interpretations of sacred scripture meet, the Crusades, terrorist attacks, and malevolent cults may occur. Religion itself isn't wrong (I myself, though not Christian per se, am religious), but persecution on behalf of God (who is portrayed as the force of good) is silly.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

<span style='color:red'>Please move if needed, there still isn’t a RELIGION forum and I could not find any relevant topics coinciding with this!</span>
Boy, is this consroversial, but I wrote it a while back and thought I would post it
Some things are beyond our comprehension folks. Things that we will never understand. There are journeys we take in our life that cause us to have mixed feelings, beliefs, and ultimately, big differences between us. We feel as though we are a small part of a vast universe in its travels. We have seen the shame, the evil, and the unjustness. Many doubt that there is a God, many people know there is, but refuse to accept Him. I have myself rejected a loving God. Though I didn’t know it at the time. Raised in a Christian family, I have always believed in God. I took it by faith, and still do. But some people can never believe in something, if they cannot see the evidence, or even the object itself. Forum members, today, I am going to bring you the truth and facts, the evidence, if you will, that shows there IS a God. Let us start.

Evolutionist’s viewpoint:
The evolutionist believes that the world began when a “Big Bang” caused an instantaneous creation of the universe. But wait, there is more. You see we weren’t here yet. We were just organisms in the ocean. What we were before that, I have no idea probably sludge or something. But let’s move on. We evolved, slowly through a process of selection until we started to be perfected, with the fit surviving. Strange huh? Now, with evolutions theory, we will soon become perfect. But there are some flaws.

The flaws:
Evolution says that the organism needs only enough brain or knowledge to become smart. For instance, we are evolved enough that we can do math and other problems, as well as retain knowledge well. The earlier civilizations, by evolution’s standards, were dumb. But here we meet a conflict. An evolutionist took an Indian never in contact with the civilized world, and gave him the best education. In 10 years, he was a world-class scholar. See a problem? There is. The Indian should have never of been advanced enough to be so smart. Here we meet the first problem. But we meet even more going back farther. You see, we find a mysterious link that seems to be missing. Suspicious? Why, yes, yes it is. But we will still find more problems, you see. We find a point in time where we were dumb, and were still meeting the needs we required to stay alive. May I ask why we have knowledge today to have technologically advanced minds, but other animals don’t. If there is a chance for anything to become an intelligent being, than why don’t we see more? Why just us? No answers? But more then that, evolution claims we evolved, working our way up in the “system” until we are here today. If we came from fish, why did we come from them? And if we did, why are fish still here if they are inferior. After all, fish get eaten, we don’t, the fish shouldn’t be here right now, we should have stomped them out through “natural selection”. You see, evolution is just a theory. Science is a fact. I see evolution taught in all sorts of ways, but always in schools. Especially in public schools, but especially in science class. But why when science is out of comprehension and cannot be proven? Like I said, just a theory. Now lets look at some more arguments for God. We start with:

A creationist’s viewpoint:
We believe that God created the earth in six days, taking the seventh to rest, as it says in the Bible. There was nothing before earth. He created the heavens and the earth. This includes the universe. No Big Bang. We believe that God is the intelligent designer behind it all. Why? Because we can see from history that there were people, they came from somewhere. And that God is the one who made us, besides there are miracles out there. What else could it be? But the most influencing reason is because we know that Jesus died for us. Ancient records show it. And, if you look, the Bible showed scientific principles before they were even known. We know the Bible existed for many years before accurate scientific principles even came out. Let me show you some,

What backs it:
These are some scientific principles the Bible talked about before they were known to be true.
An ancient belief was that all stars were the same. But the Bible says different:

Another was that air was weightless. Really, we know differently now and we can also see that the Bible says differently:

Another belief was that mountains were only on earth, I mean, no one went down that far. They thought there were monsters down there. But Jonah, when he was disobedient to God, was swallowed by a fish, and he got to know what was down there, and here is his account:

And again we had the belief that the earth was flat. But again the Bible had the answer:

And believe it or not guys, there was also a belief that there were six thousand stars. But again, the bible had the answer:

And finally, if you are getting sick of all the quote tags, we have one more. People didn’t know that there was a water cycle. They didn’t know where it came from. But wait, it’s a bird, it’s a plane, NO, it’s the Bible to the rescue!

Can you believe that!? The Bible had it all along. If only we had heeded it. You see guys, God is greater then we, He created this earth, I think He knows how it works. When you put together a bike, by the time you are done, you know how it works. It just blows my mind guys!

You know guys, there is just a great example I love to use. Suppose you found a watch, it was sitting on a rock, the first you would ask is not, where did the rock come from, you would ask, where did the watch come from. Apparently, the watch did not get there on it’s own. It must have had some designer. However, what about the rock? Where did it come from? It didn’t get there on its own as you can imagine. But the first thing you would think is, it’s been there forever. But I know differently. “Something” happened. No, I am not trying to freak you out, but something had to happen in order for it to get there, but back to the watch. Let me propose to you, that the watch was there all along to, it just developed there, all by itself. Now most people would find this ludicrous. But why? Okay fine, I will change that to, it evolved from a tree. Now I would be on my way to a metal institution. You see, if I told you that we came from a fish, it is quite believable. Now, why couldn’t we come from a tree? These arguments may seem dumb, but its all evidence that evolution is another theory that can’t be proven because it isn’t practical, nor is it right. I know it sounds like I am tearing down evolution a lot, but that is because I am. I give arguments on both sides to prove the case. Any people willing to discuss, I am not getting into any debates, or else I would have posted it there. No, I want a discussion. If you want to get into an argument, then fine, I like a minor debate, but nothing big guys. Okay? And please keep your calm during high-tension discussions. Thanks guys!

I am truly sorry for the crunching of your words into larger sections. I'm not allowed to have structured Q-A conversation apparently. Can we get rid of this quote limit?

Evolution itself is a solid FACT, and could be described as a scientific LAW (DIFFERENT than a theory in that it DESCRIBES A PROCCESS WE KNOW that occurs in the natural world, unlike a THEORY, which DESCRIBES HOW SOMETHING OCCCURS). Evolution THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION IS A THEORY, but it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which is well tested and proven through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD before being recognised as a theory. It is NOT a THEORY in the layman's terms of the word, which makes it easy to make a straw man argument against it because you think that it is just as well thought out as a HYPOTHESIS, which is NOT A THEORY.