Is the Trinity in the Book of Job?
Joshua 1:1 as recorded in the Aleppo Codex" width="220" height="108" data-file-width="728" data-file-height="356" />
Trinitarians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is found throughout the Bible. The Old Testament book of Job, with its 42 chapters, is one of the longest Bible books, so if what is asserted to be the main doctrine of Christianity is true, one would expect to find at least some evidence of it in Job. Is the Trinity in the book of Job?
Job 1:6; 2:1 – “Now it was the day that the sons of God came to stand before Yahweh and Satan also came among them.” “Again it was the day that the sons of God came to stand before Yahweh, and Satan also came among them to stand himself before Yahweh” (LSB). “In the Old Testament, “sons of God” often refers to angelic beings. This phrase suggests a gathering of divine beings in the heavenly court. The term is used similarly in Genesis 6:2 and Job 38:7, indicating beings created by God who serve Him . . . The use of “LORD” in all capitals signifies the divine name YHWH, emphasizing God’s sovereignty and authority. This setting underscores God’s supreme rule over all creation, including the spiritual realm” (Bible Hub Study Bible). Jesus, at Matthew 22:41-46 quotes and applies Psalm 110:1 in a way that makes it obvious he is not Yahweh. At these two heavenly meetings, Yahweh, the angels and Satan were in attendance. But where are Jesus and the holy Spirit, since they are supposedly equal members of the Trinitarian “Godhead”? Are they AWOL? Jesus is real, and has existed since his “origin . . . from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2 NRSV). Even though Jesus was alive back then, and may have been at that heavenly meeting, it was Yahweh God who handled matters with Satan. As we will see later in this article, the holy Spirit is not a person, so it couldn’t attend the meeting. These views into the heavenly realm give evidence against the Trinity.
Job 9:5,8 – “God is the One . . . who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea” (LSB). Trinitarians have claimed that since this account shows God is in control of the water, and Jesus walked on the water, Jesus is God. However, when Jesus walked on water, who did his disciples say he was? “Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God'” (Matthew 14:33 NAB). They did not think Jesus was God. They knew he is ‘THE SON OF GOD”.
Job 9:33 – “If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring together” (NIV). “The longing for a mediator foreshadows the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ as the ultimate mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), who reconciles humanity to God. Job’s cry highlights the human need for someone to intercede on their behalf, a theme that resonates throughout Scripture” (Bible Hub Study Bible). “There is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5 NAB). By definition, the mediator cannot be either of the two parties that he mediates “between”. Therefore, it is obvious that Christ cannot be either”God” or “mankind”. No, Christ is “the man”, the “one mediator”, who stands between “God and the human race”.. This one scripture is enough to obliterate Trinitarian notions.
Job 19:25 – “I know that my redeemer lives, and that he will stand on the earth” (NIV). “The affirmation that the Redeemer “lives” is prophetic, foreshadowing the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is alive and intercedes for believers (Hebrews 7:25)” (Bible Hub Study Bible). Job figured his death was imminent, but had faith that God would provide a redeemer.”But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:20-22 NIV). “Who gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:6 NIV). “Sacrificed himself” (REB). Jesus “Christ died for our sins” as a ransom sacrifice (1 Corinthians 15:3). By contrast, Almighty “God”, “Yahweh . . . never dies” (Habakkuk 1:12 NJB). Therefore Jesus cannot be Almighty God. This one fact also obliterates the Trinity.
Job 19:26 – “After my skin is destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God” (NIV). In their efforts to prop up their dogma, Trinitarians have used this verse to try to “prove” Jesus is God. The problem with that idea is that many people saw Jesus (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-3). In their desperation, Trinitarians try to explain away scriptures, such as, “Yahweh said to Moses . . . ‘ no man can see Me and live’ ” (Exodus 33:20 LSB), and, “No one has ever seen God” (1 John 4:12 NIV), which prove their dogma false. How did Job “see God” ‘in his flesh’? — After “Yahweh answered Job out of the whirlwind” (Job 38:1 LSB), and adjusted Job’s thinking, Job confessed, “My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you” (Job 42:4 NIV). Job ‘saw God’ with “the eyes of . . . understanding” (Ephesians 1:18 NKJV), not literally.
Job 26:13 – “By His Spirit He adorned the heavens; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent” (NKJV).
Trinitarians have tried to use this scripture to claim that the holy Spirit is a person. However, the scripture actually reads, “by his Spirit”, that is, by “God’s Spirit” (compare 1 Corinthians 3:16 ESV). The fact that the Hebrew word “ruach” here in Job 26:13 is also accurately translated as “breath” (NIV) and “wind” (NAB), gives strong evidence the holy Spirit is not a person.
Job 36:4 – “The one who has perfect knowledge is with you” (NIV). There is only one individual who has ever had “perfect knowledge”. Yahweh God the Father is ‘the one with perfect knowledge’. Referring to “Yahweh”, “God” (Psalm 94:1 LSB), the psalmist says, “He knows everything” (Psalm 94:1 NLT). Does Jesus have perfect knowledge? — No. Jesus admitted there are things he doesn’t know, but only his Father does (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32; Acts 1:8).
Job 37:24 – “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power” (NIV). The title “Almighty” is owned by only one individual, not three, as the Trinity doctrine asserts. Here is the proof: “‘I WILL BE A FATHER TO YOU And you will be sons and daughters to Me,’ SAYS Yahweh ALMIGHTY” (2 Corinthians 6:18 LSB margin). “The Almighty” is identified as the “Father”, not the Son or the holy Spirit. Jesus has “brothers” (Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:11), but no sons. God Almighty has “sons” (Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26; Revelation 21:7). As we’ve seen, the holy Spirit is not a person.
Since “interpretations belong to God” (Genesis 40:8 NIV), we’ve “examined the scriptures . . . to see if what” Trinitarians “say” is “true” (Acts 17:11 NIV). We’ve examined the question, “Is the Trinity in the book of Job?”, and not only find the evidence lacking in support of it, but find that the book of Job contradicts the Trinity doctrine.
16 thoughts on “Is the Trinity in the Book of Job?”
The Book of Job is fiction. If he did exist, God would never do what that book describes God would do.
God would never subject someone he loves to incredible suffering for the further strengthening of their faith and the faith of those around them? We needn’t look farther than the cross to see that God is willing to subject someone whom he loves with the entirety of His being to suffering. Jesus did not desire the cross (Mt. 26:39) and he despised the shame (Hebrews 12:2) and was completely forsaken by God on the cross (Mt. 27:46) but God still allowed it and even poured out his wrath on him. Even if Job wasn’t a real person, the message of the book stands in scripture and so it seems hard to say that God wouldn’t do it?
SR1: God would never subject someone he loves to incredible suffering for the further strengthening of their faith and the faith of those around them?
GW1: If he did exist (he doesn’t), God would not commit any unethical act since he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral. In Job, the author describes God committing an unethical act – allowing Satan to torture Job to test his loyalty to God. This would never happen. The story is fiction.
SR1: We needn’t look farther than the cross to see that God is willing to subject someone whom he loves with the entirety of His being to suffering. Jesus did not desire the cross (Mt. 26:39) and he despised the shame (Hebrews 12:2) and was completely forsaken by God on the cross (Mt. 27:46) but God still allowed it and even poured out his wrath on him.
GW1: If he did exist (he doesn’t), God would not commit any unethical act since he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral. In the Gospels, the authors describe God committing an unethical act – requiring Jesus, his son or his delegate, to submit himself to be crucified and allowing the Romans to do it! This would never happen. Although it is likely that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, it is fiction that God asked him to submit himself to be crucified.
SR1: Even if Job wasn’t a real person, the message of the book stands in scripture and so it seems hard to say that God wouldn’t do it?
GW1: I disagree. It is very easy to say that God would not do it. He would not allow either Job or Jesus to be tortured and Jesus to be murdered. God would not be immoral like that. Instead, he would be perfectly moral, if he did exist. It is clear that the books of Job and all the Gospels are false in many ways and could not have been authored, dictated, or influenced by God. If he did exist, God would not include such immoral, horrible, and false stories in those books.
Hi, Seth,
We’re glad to have your comments.
Gary Whittenberger is an atheist with a hard-core agenda to disprove the existence of God, and to discredit the Bible as being the inspired word of God (1 Thessalonians 1:12), who has posted his ideas here at times.
The Book of Job reports accurate historical events that took place during Job’s life, about 3,500 years ago.
The following is excerpted from an article on this website about the Oasis of Tema, mentioned at Job 6:19.
It provides some supporting details regarding the historicity of the Book of Job.
Ancient long distance travelers were dependent upon having adequate water during their journeys, which could take days or months. This was especially true when traveling through deserts. In the case of caravans of animals carrying heavy loads, the need of large amounts of water was extremely important. That made the oasis of Tema a popular and indispensable stop for Sabean traders traversing across the major north-south in the Arabian desert. Notice the Bible’s passing reference to the oasis of Tema:
“The caravans of Tema look for water, the traveling merchants of Sheba look in hope. They are distressed, because they had been confident; they arrive there, only to be disappointed”—Job 6:19-20 NIV
The Bible’s reference in Job to Tema is to the modern Tayma, or Taima, an oasis, about 250 miles (402 KM) southeast of Ezion-Geber, sat at the crossroads of two major caravan routes, one north-south, the other east-west. Camels could travel up to a week without water, but sooner or later they had to have water. If a caravan needing water came to a watering hole, or oasis, and, for some reason, found it dry, disaster loomed. Their hopes of finding water were dashed, and found themselves in dire straits , facing the prospect of dying of thirst.
Job was likely familiar with the caravans of Sheba, as well as the oasis of Tema, either with firsthand experience himself, or through accurate reports.. His wealth (Job 1:3) may have afforded him opportunity to trade with the caravans of Sheba, or he may have organized his own caravans which through the oasis of Tema. Job may have even passed through, or traveled to, Tema himself, since he lived “in the land of Uz” (Job 1:1), Uz was likely near Edom in northern Arabia. Edom was about 300 miles northwest of Tema.
How was Job using the oasis of Tema (Job 6:19,20) to illustrate something? Let’s see:
“Job’s three friends . . . met together by agreement to go and sympathize with him and comfort him”—Job 2 :11 NIV
Is this what they did? No, their discouraging words to Job were so harsh and unkind that he called them “miserable comforters” (Job 16:2 NIV).
“Anyone who withholds kindness from a friend forsakes the fear of the Almighty”—Job 6:14 NIV
Job here described his disappointment over the lack of compassion and cutting remarks of his “friends”. The point of his figure of speech using caravans arriving at the oasis of Tema only to find it dry, was that he expected his “friends” would comfort him rather than hurt and attack him, saying, in effect, that his friends were “all dried up”. So Job told his “friends”, “Now you too have proved to be of no help” (Job 6:21 NIV).
The oasis of Tema was a vital water source for many travelers and caravans, just as the Bible implies. It was, and is still, a real place. Contrast this with places mentioned in the Book of Mormon, which have zero evidence of ever having existed. As Jesus said, Bible “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35 NKJV), whereas the Book of Mormon is like “broken cisterns that cannot hold water” (Jeremiah 2:13 NIV), of truth, that is.
Even in its smallest, most obscure details, the Bible always proves to be accurate. Job himself is even asserted by some to be a fictional. While the reality of the existence of the Oasis of Tema doesn’t itself prove that Job existed, it certainly helps lend credibility to the historicity of the Bible book Of Job.
BA1: Hi, Seth, We’re glad to have your comments.
GW1: Yes, Seth, thank you for weighing in on this important topic.
BA1: Gary Whittenberger is an atheist with a hard-core agenda to disprove the existence of God, and to discredit the Bible as being the inspired word of God (1 Thessalonians 1:12), who has posted his ideas here at times.
GW1: I am Gary Whittenberger and I am a progressive secular humanist and a gnostic atheist. I have a hard-core agenda to spread the truth about God – that he does not exist and that this has been proven. I have devised many proofs of this. Of course, since God does not exist, the Bible cannot be “the inspired word of God,” as the editors of Bible Authenticity have claimed.
BA1: The Book of Job reports accurate historical events that took place during Job’s life, about 3,500 years ago.
GW1: False. The Book of Job is nearly complete fiction. There was almost certainly no man Job to whom the events happened. And neither God nor Satan exist.
BA1: The following is excerpted from an article on this website about the Oasis of Tema, mentioned at Job 6:19. It provides some supporting details regarding the historicity of the Book of Job.
BA1: “Ancient long distance travelers were dependent upon having adequate water during their journeys, which could take days or months. This was especially true when traveling through deserts. In the case of caravans of animals carrying heavy loads, the need of large amounts of water was extremely important. That made the oasis of Tema a popular and indispensable stop for Sabean traders traversing across the major north-south in the Arabian desert. Notice the Bible’s passing reference to the oasis of Tema:
BA1: “The caravans of Tema look for water, the traveling merchants of Sheba look in hope. They are distressed, because they had been confident; they arrive there, only to be disappointed”—Job 6:19-20 NIV
BA1: The Bible’s reference in Job to Tema is to the modern Tayma, or Taima, an oasis, about 250 miles (402 KM) southeast of Ezion-Geber, sat at the crossroads of two major caravan routes, one north-south, the other east-west. Camels could travel up to a week without water, but sooner or later they had to have water. If a caravan needing water came to a watering hole, or oasis, and, for some reason, found it dry, disaster loomed. Their hopes of finding water were dashed, and found themselves in dire straits , facing the prospect of dying of thirst.
GW1: This could be true about Tema. Authors of historical fiction often weave facts about places and times into their made-up narratives.
BA1: Job was likely familiar with the caravans of Sheba, as well as the oasis of Tema, either with firsthand experience himself, or through accurate reports.. His wealth (Job 1:3) may have afforded him opportunity to trade with the caravans of Sheba, or he may have organized his own caravans which through the oasis of Tema. Job may have even passed through, or traveled to, Tema himself, since he lived “in the land of Uz” (Job 1:1), Uz was likely near Edom in northern Arabia. Edom was about 300 miles northwest of Tema.
GW1: Outside the Bible, what authors have corroborated this story of Job? Please provide references and links to them.
BA1: How was Job using the oasis of Tema (Job 6:19,20) to illustrate something? Let’s see: “Job’s three friends . . . met together by agreement to go and sympathize with him and comfort him”—Job 2 :11 NIV Is this what they did? No, their discouraging words to Job were so harsh and unkind that he called them “miserable comforters” (Job 16:2 NIV). “Anyone who withholds kindness from a friend forsakes the fear of the Almighty”—Job 6:14 NIV
GW1: Notice that all this information is presented in Job which is most likely historical fiction. If God did exist (he doesn’t), he would never act in the horrible unethical manner, described in the narrative.
BA1: Job here described his disappointment over the lack of compassion and cutting remarks of his “friends”. The point of his figure of speech using caravans arriving at the oasis of Tema only to find it dry, was that he expected his “friends” would comfort him rather than hurt and attack him, saying, in effect, that his friends were “all dried up”. So Job told his “friends”, “Now you too have proved to be of no help” (Job 6:21 NIV).
GW1: Well sure, the friends were of no help, but you are missing the point. God, if he did exist, would not allow Satan, if he did exist, to cause Job so much suffering. Those acts would be immoral by God and by Satan.
BA1: The oasis of Tema was a vital water source for many travelers and caravans, just as the Bible implies. It was, and is still, a real place. Contrast this with places mentioned in the Book of Mormon, which have zero evidence of ever having existed.
GW1: It is not surprising that the author of Job would include a few correct details in his fictional narrative. Oh, we know the Book of Mormon is also mostly a fictional work. We can agree on that.
BA1: As Jesus said, Bible “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35 NKJV), whereas the Book of Mormon is like “broken cisterns that cannot hold water” (Jeremiah 2:13 NIV), of truth, that is.
GW1: The Book of Mormon is irrelevant to the issues with the story of Job.
BA1: Even in its smallest, most obscure details, the Bible always proves to be accurate.
GW1: False. Some details in the Bible, great and small, are inaccurate. For example, Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” We know this is false, and it is a major detail.
BA1: Job himself is even asserted by some to be a fictional.
GW1: Yes, Job is probably a fictional character.
BA1: While the reality of the existence of the Oasis of Tema doesn’t itself prove that Job existed, it certainly helps lend credibility to the historicity of the Bible book Of Job.
GW1: Very little, almost none.
To Seth Roberts:
Notice how atheist Gary Whittenberger not only denies the truth of Genesis 1:1, he denies the scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.
“GW1: False. Some details in the Bible, great and small, are inaccurate. For example, Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” We know this is false, and it is a major detail.”
The following is taken from an article this website entitled, “Newly Discovered Evidence of Genesis 1:1”:
Some atheists deny the universe had a beginning. Is there any evidence in support of Genesis 1:1?
“. . . when the universe was created”—USA Today
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”—Genesis 1:1
Some atheists deny not only the Bible, but also science, by claiming that the universe did not have a beginning. Their denial of proven science shows the depths to they will go to avoid any possibility of God’s existence, and creation.
An article in USA Today entitled “Signal Received from Far Reaches of Early Universe” reports:
An artist’s rendering shows how the first stars might have looked. — N.R. FULLER/NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…
For the first time, astronomers have detected a signal from stars emerging in the early universe some 14 billion years ago.
They may also have detected mysterious “dark matter” at work.
Using a radio antenna not much bigger than a refrigerator, astronomers discovered that primordial suns began to shine about 180 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was created.
“Finding this minuscule signal has opened a new window on the early universe,” said astronomer Judd Bowman of Arizona State University, the lead author of a study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature.
Telescopes cannot see far enough to directly “see” such ancient stars, Bowman said, but the stars can be detected by the faint radio waves they emitted.
In order to reduce unwanted radio waves from our noisy Earth and across the galaxy, researchers chose a remote spot in the Western Australian desert to set up equipment to detect those faint signals from the early universe.
It’s basically as difficult as “being in the middle of a hurricane and trying to hear the flap of a hummingbird’s wing,” said Peter Kurczynski, a National Science Foundation program officer who supported the study.
“These researchers with a small radio antenna in the desert have seen farther than the most powerful space telescopes, opening a new window on the early universe,” he said.
The signal also showed unexpectedly cold temperatures and an unusually pronounced wave, the Associated Press reported. Astronomers said the best explanation was likely the elusive, so-called “dark matter,” a substantial part of the universe for which scientists have been searching for decades.
“If confirmed, this discovery deserves two Nobel Prizes” for both capturing the signal of the first stars and potential dark matter confirmation, Harvard University astronomer Avi Loeb, who wasn’t part of the research team, told AP.
Like virtually all other astronomical discoveries, this latest one provides additional evidence for a universe, not so long after its “beginning”, on the astronomical timescale (Genesis 1:1). All the actual scientific discoveries made thus far, including this one, provide more and more evidence that the universe had a beginning.
“Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists”—Hebrews 3:4 NJB
In spite of this overwhelming astronomical evidence, however, atheists and skeptics continue to perpetuate bogus information that suits their ideology, however, namely that the universe had no beginning. Long ago, the Bible said the universe had a beginning, coming from nothing that is visible. “The entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen” (Hebrews 11:3). So much evidence has come to light in the past 100 years, that most astronomers can no longer honestly deny that the universe had a beginning.
“Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities . . . have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”.
But especially is this true now, with so many scientific discoveries confirming what the Bible has said all along, “so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV).
BA2: Notice how atheist Gary Whittenberger not only denies the truth of Genesis 1:1, he denies the scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.
GW2: Genesis 1:1 is false because it claims God did something, when God does not exist. I have the proofs! The consensus of relevant scientists right now is that we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, if anything. I recommend to you both this recent book on the subject: “Battle of the Big Bang.”
“GW1: False. Some details in the Bible, great and small, are inaccurate. For example, Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” We know this is false, and it is a major detail.”
BA2: The following is taken from an article this website entitled, “Newly Discovered Evidence of Genesis 1:1”:
BA2: Some atheists deny the universe had a beginning. Is there any evidence in support of Genesis 1:1? “. . . when the universe was created”—USA Today
GW2: Here we see the error of “begging the question.” It just assumes the universe was created without proving it.
BA2: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”—Genesis 1:1
GW2: We know the verse. I already quoted it.
BA2: Some atheists deny not only the Bible, but also science, by claiming that the universe did not have a beginning. Their denial of proven science shows the depths to they will go to avoid any possibility of God’s existence, and creation.
GW2: Already refuted this. See above.
BA2: An article in USA Today entitled “Signal Received from Far Reaches of Early Universe” reports: An artist’s rendering shows how the first stars might have looked. — N.R. FULLER/NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…For the first time, astronomers have detected a signal from stars emerging in the early universe some 14 billion years ago.
GW2: This is not evidence that the universe had a beginning, a creation, or a creator.
BA2: They may also have detected mysterious “dark matter” at work. Using a radio antenna not much bigger than a refrigerator, astronomers discovered that primordial suns began to shine about 180 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was created.
GW2: Same error – begging the question. Finding evidence of dark matter or suns forming 180 million years after the Big Ban is not evidence that the universe had a begging, a creation, or a creator.
BA2: “Finding this minuscule signal has opened a new window on the early universe,” said astronomer Judd Bowman of Arizona State University, the lead author of a study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature.
GW2: Yes, the way the universe was early after the Big Bang.
BA2: Telescopes cannot see far enough to directly “see” such ancient stars, Bowman said, but the stars can be detected by the faint radio waves they emitted. In order to reduce unwanted radio waves from our noisy Earth and across the galaxy, researchers chose a remote spot in the Western Australian desert to set up equipment to detect those faint signals from the early universe. It’s basically as difficult as “being in the middle of a hurricane and trying to hear the flap of a hummingbird’s wing,” said Peter Kurczynski, a National Science Foundation program officer who supported the study. “These researchers with a small radio antenna in the desert have seen farther than the most powerful space telescopes, opening a new window on the early universe,” he said. The signal also showed unexpectedly cold temperatures and an unusually pronounced wave, the Associated Press reported. Astronomers said the best explanation was likely the elusive, so-called “dark matter,” a substantial part of the universe for which scientists have been searching for decades. “If confirmed, this discovery deserves two Nobel Prizes” for both capturing the signal of the first stars and potential dark matter confirmation, Harvard University astronomer Avi Loeb, who wasn’t part of the research team, told AP.
GW2: This is irrelevant to whether our universe had a beginning, a creation, or a creator.
BA2: Like virtually all other astronomical discoveries, this latest one provides additional evidence for a universe, not so long after its “beginning”, on the astronomical timescale (Genesis 1:1). All the actual scientific discoveries made thus far, including this one, provide more and more evidence that the universe had a beginning.
GW2: More begging the question. The article assumes what it is trying to prove. This is out of bounds in rational discourse.
BA2: “Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists”—Hebrews 3:4 NJB
GW2: Speculation, mere assertion. There is no good evidence to support this idea. Besides, God doesn’t exist! I have the proofs!
BA2: In spite of this overwhelming astronomical evidence, however, atheists and skeptics continue to perpetuate bogus information that suits their ideology, however, namely that the universe had no beginning.
GW2: You are the one claiming the universe had a beginning. This goes against the scientific consensus that we do not currently know if the universe had a beginning or not. There are at least six good reasons to conclude that the universe is probably ETERNAL.
BA2: Long ago, the Bible said the universe had a beginning, coming from nothing that is visible.
GW2: Yes, and the authors knew nothing about physics, astronomy, or cosmology.
BA2: “The entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen” (Hebrews 11:3).
GW2: This verse is false. We now know and have proven that God does not exist.
BA2: So much evidence has come to light in the past 100 years, that most astronomers can no longer honestly deny that the universe had a beginning.
GW2: Already refuted.
BA2: “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities . . . have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”.
GW2: No, they haven’t! If God did exist, he would make himself visible to us, communicate directly with us, and even perform some miracles for us to validate his identity. But this has never happened. This is one reason we know he does not exist!
BA2: But especially is this true now, with so many scientific discoveries confirming what the Bible has said all along, “so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV).
GW2: The new discoveries are falsifying much of what the Bible has said all along. We now know and have proven that God does not exist!
GW2: Seth, keep searching for the truth. If you do, eventually you will come to the same conclusion I have — God does not exist!
The Laws of Logic and Physics prove the universe had a beginning:
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the universe must have had a beginning, otherwise it would already be completely disordered.
2. The First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of mass-energy) says the universe could not have begun itself.
Scientific facts and Logic prove the truth of Genesis 1:1.
There are no other options.
BA3: The Laws of Logic and Physics prove the universe had a beginning:
GW3: False.
BA3: 1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the universe must have had a beginning, otherwise it would already be completely disordered.
GW3: This is a non sequitur error. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The universe is probably eternal and the process of increasing entropy might be either an eternal process or a temporary process.
BA3: 2. The First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of mass-energy) says the universe could not have begun itself.
GW3: A thing cannot precede its own existence and therefore cannot begin or cause itself to exist. That is impossible. The First Law says that energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed. And so, this means that universe is probably eternal and did not have a beginning.
BA3: Scientific facts and Logic prove the truth of Genesis 1:1.
GW3: Genesis 1:1 refers to God, and it is false because we now know that God does not exist. I have the proofs!
BA3: There are no other options.
GW3: There is at least one other option – the universe is eternal and thus did not have a beginning, a creation, or a creator. There are at least six good reasons to conclude that the universe is probably eternal.
The red shift of light in the universe proves it is expanding, and therefore, had a beginning.
The Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence of the beginning of the universe.
If the universe was eternal, it would be completely disordered, according the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
All this harmonizes with Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 3:4.
BA4: The red shift of light in the universe proves it is expanding, and therefore, had a beginning.
GW4: Yes, the current expansion had a beginning, but not the existence of the universe.
BA4: The Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence of the beginning of the universe.
GW4: No, it is evidence of the beginning of an expansion of the universe. The universe already existed before the Big Bang. At that time it consisted of a very hot, very dense, very small packet of energy.
BA4: If the universe was eternal, it would be completely disordered, according the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
GW4: This is a non sequitur error. The increase of entropy began at the same time as the expansion of the universe at the Big Bang. The universe already existed before that moment and it is probably eternal.
BA4: Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
GW4: Maybe. But the universe probably did not have a beginning. There are at least six good reasons to think so.
BA4: All this harmonizes with Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 3:4.
GW4: Never cite specific Bible verses without quoting them. Don’t be so lazy. Do you duty.
*****
GW4: Regarding a different topic, I have good news! I finally discovered what Bart Ehrman thinks about Hell. I highly recommend this video to you and our readers: Did Jesus Actually Believe in Hell? By Bart D. Ehrman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d780fAvin3s
There are two important segments in this video. One is about hell and the other is about the supposed burial tomb of Jesus.
According to Ehrman, Jesus and his early followers believed that there would be a Judgement Day on which God would resurrect the dead to be judged along with the still living. God would enable those who had accepted Jesus as their savior into eternal life with him. On the other hand, God would send those who had not accepted Jesus as their savior to hell, the lake of fire, whether they would be EXTERMINATED and never return to life. Also, hell would be reserved for Satan and his minions where they would experience ETERNAL TORMENT.
In the later portion of the video Ehrman states his conclusion that when Jesus was removed from the cross, he was not placed in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea for a proper Jewish burial, but his remains were thrown into a common pit reserved for those who were criminals, were crucified, or both.
I agree with Ehrman on both points. He is the greatest scholar of the New Testament in the world at this time.
Atheism is thus soundly defeated by the facts of science and logic.
You’ve got a Bible and can easily look up the scriptures.
If you’re unwilling, that means you’re not interested in the truth.
In the Bible, “hell’ is the symbolic place of the “dead” who will be resurrected (Revelation 20:13; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 LSB)”the lake of fire is the second death” (Revelation 20:14), which is the symbolic place of the dead, who will not be resurrected, but are “non-existent” forever (Isaiah 41:12 LSB; Psalm 145:20).
All four gospels report the fact that Jesus dead body was placed by “Joseph of Arimathea” in “a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid” (John 19:38-41).
Atheist Ehrman has no proof of his contrary speculations about Jesus’ burial.
BA5: Atheism is thus soundly defeated by the facts of science and logic.
GW5: False. You are confused. The position of atheism is merely “I don’t believe in any deities.” How is absence of a belief defeated by science and logic? It’s not. Belief in God, however, is defeated by a combination of philosophy, science, and history. I have the proofs!
BA5: You’ve got a Bible and can easily look up the scriptures.
GW5: You have over a dozen Bibles and can easily look up scriptures. If you make a claim and you use a Bible verse to support your claim, then it is YOUR OBLIGATION to quote the verse. Do your duty! Don’t be so lazy.
BA5: If you’re unwilling, that means you’re not interested in the truth.
GW5: So, given that you are unwilling, you are not interested in the truth.
BA5: In the Bible, “hell’ is the symbolic place of the “dead” who will be resurrected (Revelation 20:13; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 LSB)”the lake of fire is the second death” (Revelation 20:14), which is the symbolic place of the dead, who will not be resurrected, but are “non-existent” forever (Isaiah 41:12 LSB; Psalm 145:20).
GW5: Who cares about symbolic places? I don’t. I care about real places.
BA5: All four gospels report the fact that Jesus dead body was placed by “Joseph of Arimathea” in “a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid” (John 19:38-41).
GW5: I don’t believe you. Quote and cite the specific verses from the four Gospels which supposedly support your claim.
BA5: Atheist Ehrman has no proof of his contrary speculations about Jesus’ burial.
GW5: Yes, he does! Obviously you did not yet watch the video. The narrative about placing Jesus corpse in a tomb is probably a fabrication.
BA5: All four gospels report the fact that Jesus dead body was placed by “Joseph of Arimathea” in “a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid” (John 19:38-41).
GW5: I don’t believe you. Quote and cite the specific verses from the four Gospels which supposedly support your claim.
BA—Look it up yourself: Matthew 27:57-66; Mark 15:42;47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-41
BA5: Atheist Ehrman has no proof of his contrary speculations about Jesus’ burial.
GW5: Yes, he does! Obviously you did not yet watch the video. The narrative about
BA—I’ve checked on Ehrman’s highly speculative assertion that Jesus’ corpse wasn’t buried in a tomb, as reported in the Bible.
He argues from probability.
It’s the same old recycled fluff.
AI highlights the weakness of such argumentation:
“An argument from probability is considered weak (or an informal fallacy) when it mistakes a low-probability event for an impossible one, or conversely, treats a high-probability event as a certainty. It is weak because it relies on uncertain premises or inductive reasoning that does not guarantee the conclusion.
Key Reasons Arguments from Probability Are Weak:
The “Lottery” Fallacy: Just because an event is extremely unlikely, it doesn’t mean it cannot happen. A single person winning the lottery is highly improbable, yet someone eventually wins.
Confusing Improbability with Impossibility: Arguing that because something is unlikely (e.g., in evolutionary biology or cosmology), it must have required supernatural intervention, often ignores that vast timeframes allow for improbable events to occur.
Contrived Probabilities: The numbers used in these arguments are often speculative or engineered to create a false sense of impossibility, acting as a “God of the Gaps” argument.
Subjectivity of “Likely”: Without solid data, the assigned probability is just an opinion, making the entire conclusion flimsy.
Ignoring Contrary Evidence: These arguments sometimes ignore evidence against their conclusion, relying purely on the low odds of the alternative.”
In essence, if an argument’s conclusion is only marginally more likely than a coin toss, or relies on “surely” rather than proof, it is likely a weak argument
BA5: All four gospels report the fact that Jesus dead body was placed by “Joseph of Arimathea” in “a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid” (John 19:38-41).
GW5: I don’t believe you. Quote and cite the specific verses from the four Gospels which supposedly support your claim.
BA6: Look it up yourself: Matthew 27:57-66; Mark 15:42;47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-41
GW6: I still don’t believe you. Quote the verses! That’s your responsibility. Don’t be so lazy. You can just copy and paste from Bible Gateway, can’t you? Why are you so lazy about this?
BA5: Atheist Ehrman has no proof of his contrary speculations about Jesus’ burial.
GW5: Yes, he does! Obviously you did not yet watch the video. The narrative about…
BA6: I’ve checked on Ehrman’s highly speculative assertion that Jesus’ corpse wasn’t buried in a tomb, as reported in the Bible.
GW6: Just as I thought – you haven’t watched the video. That figures.
BA6: He argues from probability.
GW6: That’s a good thing! It is more probable that the Romans removed Jesus corpse from the cross after two or three days and then dumped it into a common pit for criminals than that Pilate granted Josephus the corpse and he gave it a proper Jewish burial. It is more probable that somebody fabricated the tomb story and the Gospel authors repeated the fabrication than that the Romans behaved contrary to their usual practice.
BA6: It’s the same old recycled fluff.
GW6: No. The Gospels are the same old recycled fluff in this instance.
BA6: AI highlights the weakness of such argumentation:
“An argument from probability is considered weak (or an informal fallacy) when it mistakes a low-probability event for an impossible one, or conversely, treats a high-probability event as a certainty. It is weak because it relies on uncertain premises or inductive reasoning that does not guarantee the conclusion.
GW5: Ehrman’s conclusion does neither of these. He describes what was highly probable – the usual way that the Romans dealt with the corpses. The Gospel writers describe what was not the usual way. Somebody probably made up the tomb story to enhance the reputation of Jesus. Pilate was a mean man. He would not have given a hoot about giving Jesus a proper burial.
Key Reasons Arguments from Probability Are Weak:
BA6: The “Lottery” Fallacy: Just because an event is extremely unlikely, it doesn’t mean it cannot happen. A single person winning the lottery is highly improbable, yet someone eventually wins.
GW6: Straw man argument. Neither Ehrman nor I have said that the burial of Jesus in a tomb was impossible. We contend that it was unlikely. In fact, in the video Ehrman says that in all his research he never found a single report, outside the Gospels, of any corpse from crucifixion being given a proper Jewish burial. You are engaged in wishful thinking. You wish that the burial story was true and because of this you believe it is true.
BA6: Confusing Improbability with Impossibility: Arguing that because something is unlikely (e.g., in evolutionary biology or cosmology), it must have required supernatural intervention, often ignores that vast timeframes allow for improbable events to occur.
GW6: You are confused. There is nothing supernatural or impossible about either the corpse being thrown into a pit or the corpse being placed in a tomb.
BA6: Contrived Probabilities: The numbers used in these arguments are often speculative or engineered to create a false sense of impossibility, acting as a “God of the Gaps” argument.
GW6: Already refuted this claim. See above.
BA6: Subjectivity of “Likely”: Without solid data, the assigned probability is just an opinion, making the entire conclusion flimsy.
GW6: Ehrman has solid data.
BA6: Ignoring Contrary Evidence: These arguments sometimes ignore evidence against their conclusion, relying purely on the low odds of the alternative.”
GW6: You are the one ignoring contrary evidence. You have refused to watch the entire video I cited. In what percentage of all specific reports about specific instances of crucifixion was the corpse placed in a common pit vs. a nice tomb?
BA6: In essence, if an argument’s conclusion is only marginally more likely than a coin toss, or relies on “surely” rather than proof, it is likely a weak argument
GW6: Straw man. That is not the case here. Watch the entire video.