I've come to a thinking. Maybe in the beginning Earth was just a bunch of wasteland like you said. God came and he created life, and made an proper atmosphere to live in.
I've come to a thinking. Maybe in the beginning Earth was just a bunch of wasteland like you said. God came and he created life, and made an proper atmosphere to live in.
hah, did i say EVERY planet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Fist
slow your roll buddy.
and how the fuck would it work that he created just this one planet, thats some wishful thinking. and are you meaning to say he created it like it is today, or like the ball of gas that it was several billion years ago, and he just knew it would turn into what it has? Because thats a fuckload of a time to wait for a science experiement, which is what your making it out to sound like. (but im pretty sure thats the reason a lot of religions deemed the earth was only 6,000 years old, which is supposedly something god told them)
there were plenty of people who always thought the belief in a god was bullshit but it wasnt until reason started to take a little more of a hold in life that they could speak their views without being burned at the stake or stoned to death.
what erks me though is people that dont really think how religion came about. it all happend in a time way long ago when they didnt have science to explain a lot of natural phenomena that people could only attribute to some super natural being.
you make him sound so evil. killing all these ppl. the killing of any person shouldn't be justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shropsher_Slasher
and in new orleans, the consequence of the flooding: ppl didn't fear a god. instead they hated the government. if a god's master plan is to make everyone hate government, and therefore hate control, and therefore hate the way a god has power (through control, i.e. the bible and the church), then the plan doesn't work.
indeedQuote:
Originally Posted by whitey
:Originally Posted by My First Timbs
indeed there is a direct correlation. It must first be known and understood that all religions and religious concepts stem from early hominids living in hunter gatherer societies at the whim of nature. Populations who rely more on nature and the whim of the natural world for daily survival are more prone to have developed gods and religious ideals focused on their current day to day survival. These types of gods are called “focal gods”. Focal gods are gods that preside over some aspect of reality that directly impact the daily lifestyle of the believer.
For example, a god of fire, a god of rain, a god of fertiity etc etc. Focal god communities were also prone to polytheism (just based on the nature of the belief, its only natural to have more than one god.. what good is praying to the god of fire when the soil isn’t fertile?) It must also be known that the focal god was not thought to control the whole earth. The concept of “the entire earth” was not even born yet.
as time went on and humanity life style changed , our gods and ideas of religion and god changed as well . (notice I didn’t say that humanity “progressed”.. progress is a subjective assertion!). As populations started harnessing certain aspects of the natural world, a reliance on the focal god concept decreased. In addition, now gods were less focal and started becoming anthropomorphisized (made more human like) and were now able to be sad, happy, angry etc. This death of of the focal god lead to the death of polytheism. With the ushering in of monotheism also now came the birth of rage, persecution and fear of others who don’t hold the same god concept as u!
This is why thru wars and bloodshed, the losers “god” and religion was either destroyed or somehow made more similar to the now new ruling class.
This trend continues to this very day.
Culture and anthropology and human evolution and religion type are all tied together. Cultures who have been thru many wars and oppression on average have gods who were originally less charming than populations who experienced no war or oppression (such as the case with the native American and aboriginal peoples)
no. But first i must say that ur question stems from a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolutionisnt goal oriented or purpose oriented. Evolution is merely nothing but a change in the genes over time. G/T
Humans, although not living at the whim of nature and feeling the effects of geographic environmental stress on the same level we did 15000 years ago, does not mean that evolution has slowed or stopped. Its still going on. we are part of nature and will never be able to escape evolution.
recent studies have shows tha the human thumb is migrating closer to the index finger at a rate of 0.02 millimeters per generation. This is evolution ! the reason for this has to do with sexual selection and natural selection. this is just one small example among a myriad. evolution will be in existence as long as there are creatures on the planet with genomes.
a lot of people on this board really need to read this.
A long time ago, means a long fucking time ago. 15,000 years and more. When an early human saw lightining being shot down from the sky, What the hell are they supposed to think? O wait, because science has always been around and people of 15,000 ago and more were certainly on the same level as us they immedialty thought .... Lightning is a powerful natural electrostatic discharge produced during a thunderstorm. This abrupt electric discharge is accompanied by the emission of visible light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. The electruc current passing through the discharge channels rapidly heats and expands the air into plasma, producing acoustic shock waves (thunder) in the atmosphere......Are you fucking serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by thejesusfunk
By the time something like that (and many other scientific discoveries) had happened religion had already been intreched in society. Too many people had already accepted it as a staple of their lives. Once its there is very hard to get out.
^ I just disagree. Humans are curious by nature. They have a brain and they tried to used it. Back then what else would they think.
They would try and attribute something to it. Same thing with fire and rain and numerous other happenings in nature. Thats why almost all ancient civilizations thought there was a god for all that stuff. They didn't know any better, they didnt know that these were just natural phenomena explained by certain natural processes. They thought something biggerhad to be causing it. And since they didn't know any better they attributed it to something more powerful than man. A concept of a god was born. And its been with us ever since. Of course it ment different things to different people, and turned into different things from different people. Hence islam was started by certain peoples and its practiced mainly by the same peoples today. Same with chrisitanity, and hinduism, and buddism, and jewdaism. They all basically are saying the same thing, but came from different peoples, with different cultures which explains difference among the religions. But basically they are all the same.
A similair way I may try and explain what i mean is when you look at african americans today in the United States. Why do a lot of them act the way the do? There is not essentially somethign wrong with them that makes them commit more crime, do worse in school ect. ect. It is because of the way they were brought here and treated therafter that has affected them and had such lasting affects. Now this is a rather blanket statment because I am by no means am infering that all blacks americans are like this, because its not at all the case. There have been many that have broken the chain and are succseful people. But with a lot of them, like people who maintain this believe in religions and god, its something that has happend long ago and the effects are just still being seen. Its hard to break the cycle. Once it was started long ago with humans and religion it was just perpetuated, the same with the state of many africans in this country.
You know, if God didn't hate fags, Sodom & Gomorrah would still be standing. And if any of you bitches want your beloved SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that this place DID exist and he ruins ARE still around...go to www.arkdiscovery.com that is.....if you're not too much a punk to do so. Juevos???
its a joke of a post. what would god really give a shit if people were gay? hes god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shropsher_Slasher
Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
This thread was not intended to question the existence of God but I see it has taken that route. By you own statements you are saying just because man cannot validate the fact that God is keeping the planets in orbit then the thought of God is worthless. There is tons of scientific explainations that have not yet been reveal to this current society. So are you saying you base all you beliefs on scientific evidence. A few years ago over 90% of the "test" in the
New England Journal of Medicine were found inconclusive. That says alot about todays and yesterdays scientific methods.
the main issue with you people reading these things is that you're misinterpreting them. did you know that many historians believe that plato was gay because he always professed "love" for his students? love is a strong word used today, and it's the same with hate.
to hate something doesn't mean you must wish all bad upon them, but the things you are to hate are things you are to not like. that's it, don't like them. hate today is a very strong word.
I think it had more to do with the homosexual relations he had with males of his time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolish
what im saying and said is that if u have no rational reason or basis to belive something and u still believe it, just realize that its an irrational belief that has no merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wamukota X
i could believe right now that there is an invisible pink unicorn under my bed! are u to take this claim seriously without any evidence to back it up? of course not! its an irrational claim!
i base all beliefs on what th evidence dictates! this is the power and burden of free thought.. the evidence dictates what to believe.........
in similar token, it may possibly (but we all know its highly unlikely) that there are indeed invisible unicorns who live under ppl's beds.. but until that is proven, i will side with reason and not believe in invisible unicorns....
For all those who only base their beliefs on scientific explanations, I must admit that not every phenomenon is explanable. Just like God many things happening on earth cannot be proved. For example, nobody was able to provide a proper explanations of what happened at Point Pleasant in 1966 (please read). How can you explain the presence of the Mothman ? How is that possible ? If you only base your beliefs on scientific explanations, you would not believe this is true, cause it's unexplanable. Just like the presence of God for atheists, I believe. There are many other supernatural phenomenons that happen on earth, like people seeing ghosts or spirits, and I think it is linked to the presence of God in some way.
I've read on the net that atheists believe there was no beginning, is that true ?
I read something on internet and I find it very interresting:
"If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.
In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.
The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence."
For more "proof" about the presence of God, which you may call valid or not, read this page:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
see, you just proved my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by whitey
and i can see this post is about why the Bible is wrong if "hate" is used in this book of "good". the Bible is reality, it's a largely historical book. if you want to show real people who do not express hate for something then they are not human. when it referenced God hating something, it told the israelites don't do this shit because it's not good for you.
you also have to take into account TRANSLATION!!!!!! when this is being translated the translator will use the word in english that best represents what is being said in ancient hebrew/greek/latin whatever. until we know what is being said in the original version we can't come to perfect conclusions.
people used words differently ages ago, and i think it's Greek where there are numerous different words for "love", while we have only one. just an example of how English isn't the master language that can perfectly represent all others.
ahh .. u bring up what is known formally as the "first cause postulate"Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Fist
1) everything in existence does not have to have a cause! (this is where the claim first goes wrong).. it assumes all things that exist have a cuase (this is not necessarily so and has been demonstrated by advances in quantum mechanics)
2) the word "cause" is a sly attempt at intelligent design.. cause sneakily implies design.. design sneakily implies purpose.. purpose sneakily implies a designer.
3) the laws of conservation of energy did not apply until te system was created.. meaning, until a fraction of a second after the big bang.. so its irrational to apply a concept as such to creation...... its invalid
4) i dont know where u got that from, but ive never heard an athistic argument that all matter is "eternal".. absurd misrepresenttion of the athiestic position
im glad u put quotation marks around "proof"Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Fist
Well it meant that I did not know whether it was valid or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
peace iron fist
see the thing is u have to realize that the religion has an agenda... any and all claim that allegedly provide proofs or evidence for their view must always be taken with a grain of salt!
why?
because they have an agenda and motive!
rational thought and science on the othe rhand dont have an agenda or hidden motive! whatverthe evidence dictates, is what will be reported and belived in...
religion begins with an interpretation and then lastly tries to come up with arguments that allow their interpretation to seem valid! its actually quite funny and sad at the same time because most humans are preyed upon by this ever since they are infants!
Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
I overstand why you say the things you say and write the things that you write. You thinking is limiting to this "evidence" realm based on earthly proof. If there is not documented evidence than you feel what is being discussed is useless. And that's you opinion. It is free thought but this free thought is regulated by how much evidence is in that square. By your own words, evidence places limits on your free thought. That's you opinion also, I'm not knockin' it. But I know for a fact that my free thought is as limitless as the universe which has yet to be fully explored and contains infinite amounts of wisdom. Your case about the "invisible pink unicorn" is absurd. If someone wants to know whats under their bed all they have to do is look.
Quote:
Your case about the "invisible pink unicorn" is absurd. If someone wants to know whats under their bed all they have to do is look.
ahhh so u admit that belief in an invisible diety, power or entity is absurd.. congrats
there is no difference between a claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn under my bed , and a claim that an invisible force, god, supernatural realm, power or entity exists and presides over the universe
congrats on admitting this to us all and yourself
how can someone look under their bed to see if the unicorn is there if its allegedly invisible?
congrats
Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legato
This is where both of you are totally wrong. The God I know is not invisible. That's what happens when someone's thinking is limiting to an "evidence" box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
There are numerous references in the Bible and Qu'ran that verifies that God is not invisible. But since you have built up this atheist/evolutionist veneer it would be pointless to list this information. My beliefs are solidified and it appears you are confident in your beliefs. This is not a contest to say, "ahhaa" your wrong and I am right. Those games are for children.
what are u referring to? no childish opinions coming from me (regarding im rite and your wrong)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wamukota X
thats not what its about! Dont try and "belittle" the issue......
ive read and studied the Quran vigorously and objectively without emotional attachment (which is truly beneficial).
And I am a totally open minded individual..
the problem is that open minded to you = allowing irrational beliefs to have merit that have no evidential base
open minded to me = willing to accept any and everything as long as it has some verifiable merit (even if that something goes against what im comfortable with.. im obligated to accept it!)
you claim now that Allah is not invisible (a weak rebuttal to your claim's dismissal due to my invisible pink unicorn) and you openly admitting (and shooting urself in the foot) by stating how absurd that mode of reasoning is..
please share the proof or evidene that allah is not invisible... (and dont hide behind symbolism)
P.S... none of this is childish.. i take all of this as a serious issue.
it is truly a serious issue because basically and bluntly one of us is totally incorrect! There is no gray area or ambiguity. The claims are decidedly polarized. One of us is wrong!
the way to determine who is "right" and who is "wrong" rests on the nature of "objective reality" and evidence. The ball is in your court because Im sitting comfortably within the realm of objectivity and evidence!
you, yourself claim that evidence is a "limiting factor".. and that individuals should open themself up to possibilities that dont reside in a rational realm based on evidence and proof. thats just plain silly and an excuse for that which has no evidential base to back it up! Next time I go skydiving, i will disregard checking my parachute beforehand, because who cares, "evidence is limiting factor" and who cares if my pack shows "evidence" of being tampered with....
The ball is in your court (and the court of those who follow your reasoning) to provide some sort of merit to your claim. The invisible pink unicorn under my bed is the same thing as the Quran's Allah .. If we really wanna get serious, im bold enuff to say that they have the same exact powers and abilities! My invisible pet unicorn under my bed is not visible.......not able to be subjected to science......not able to be detected........and i can make any claim about my pet invisible unicorn and simply justify it by saying that i dont have to rely on "evidence" because "evidence" is a limiting factor.. LMAO whats the difference?
I am open minded to possibilities, as long as they have merit (verifiable merit)
the question is.. are you open to the possibility that your claim and philosophical stance could potentially be faulty? I (and any rational person) willingly admits that their stance could be faulty, but it has to be demonstrated to be faulty. My stance could indeed be faulty, but before i abondone it.......it must be shown (demonstrated thru reason of course)
its a sad day when the individual siding with reason is ridiculed as being unreasonable......
Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
I am diffinitely not demeaning this issue. I have not shot myself in the foot as you say. There is a major difference between an unseen force such as gravity and fantasy land animals. That fact that Allah is visible and regulates such forces, is were the disagreement resides. Again it is pointless for me to guide you to evidence that you already disagree with in reference to the existence and visibility of God. There is no symbolism to hide behind it is clear to anyone who can read.
You said you have vigorously and objectively studied the Qu'ran. With all of that work put in, it is obvious that the words I post cannot begin to compare to the Qu'ran, no matter what I say or show you will not influence your "open mind". It is true there is no gray area here, I will leave with the notion that I am right and you will probably do likewise. There is no court, this is not a game and there are no projectiles being thrown around. Are you saying that this invisible pink unicorn and Allah have the same powers? If so, what more can I say to a person with that mentality? If that is what you think so be it. I will not even try to contend with your mind on that issue. Mocking Allah does not prove your point.
i wasnt mocking "allah" to prove my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wamukota X
i was mocking your own argument to prove the very point which u unknowingly helped me prove about your stance...that being the absurdity of belief in something that is not verifiable.
im just puzzled how u claim that allah is not invisible...and if allah isnt invisible, how is the entity seen ?(so to speak)..its a very simple issue
there is no difference between an imaginary unicorn that cant be verified compared to an unseen entity that cant be verified to exist other than in the mind of the believer
Quote:
It is true there is no gray area here, I will leave with the notion that I am right and you will probably do likewise.
see here is the crux of te issue Wamukota,
im not "leaving" thinking im "right" and your "wrong"
it honestly isnt as simple as that..
what i am leaving with is a profound confidence in knowing that all of my arguments and viewpoints fall in line with evidential thinking, rationalism and objectivity..and rely heavily on that which can be substantiated objectively.......
normally, these 3 tenets will steer one in the right direction of truth.
lets say 10000 years from now, if humans are no longer here and our planet is visited by a foregn alien species, it is reasonable to conclude that they would be a prime example of an "objective unbiased observer".... with that in mind, im pretty sure any writngs or ideas or stances that could be substantiated with reason and rationality would aid them greatly in trying to understand the reality of homo sapiens......
thats the power of that which is verifiable
Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
I did not prove any point of yours. Allah is verifiable to those with an "open mind". You believe in invisible pink unicorns and I believe in Allah. That just gives me a glimpse into your mentality.
Maybe its just me, but you really aren't making any sense. You are beginning to appear quite desperate to prove something to who knows who. I know you have a few degrees and such but just because one man gives another man a piece of paper that says degree that does not make that man an expert on the subject. All the degrees around this planet not one of them are experts in their so-called field. I am pretty sure you spent at a minimum of 4 years for your undergraduate degree, a minimum of 2 years for a Masters if you have one and a range of 2-3 years for you Doctorate of Philosophy in whatever field that you studied. So, I see you have at a minimum of 8 years of your life, maybe a few books, maybe somemore paid speaking engagements at various Universities and such all vested in this Evolutionary theory. I said all that to say you are trying to hard to rationalize your stance on Evolution and the existence of Allah. I have a degree that I obtained with honors but that doesn't make me an expert in that field. This modern science has not even skimmed the surface of knowledge.
I am about to veer off our subject just a little if I haven't already.
You said:
As I stated above you obviously have alot invested in this belief ofQuote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
Evolution. You might not have had any "emotional attachment" when you "read and studied the Quran vigorously and objectively" but I am positive you had other motivations or else why read the Qu'ran if you don't believe in Allah? I'm not looking for no answers from you at this point. But of course the author of "A Call to Sanity" cannot agree with a muslim. Maybe your motivation is pride or financial, but who cares. I don't have any questions for you at this point and leave you to your invisible pink unicorns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wamukota X
You are just avoiding the subject.
Why can’t someone read the Qu'ran if they don’t believe in Allah? Maybe to learn, to be able to discuss something instead of just talking out of ones ass. to see the other sides point of view. Any of those possibly?
And you still don’t get the point of what he’s saying. All evidence at present time points to evolution and not some god being the creator of all things. He’s not going out with a set agenda to prove evolution because he fancies it more than Allah. He’s coming with that point of view because logic and reason point him in that direction. Because believing in Allah is like believing in the pink unicorn. It is just a figment of people’s imagination with no discernable proof to back up your claims. You’re still missing the point of his analogy between the pink unicorn and Allah/god/instert religious deity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitey
I am not avoiding the subject, the subject has been addressed and I am through with that. Anyone can read the Qu'ran, Timbs said that he didn't have any emotional attachment. I was addressing the emotional attachment and objectivity. He made his stance I made mine and both of our minds are still were we begin.
wamukota
u have missed or are deliberately avoiding addressing my correlation with the IPU (inv pink unicorn) (a recognized analogy referring to the unverifiable) and your Allah... u are skating around the issue "o so conveniently",
but meanwhile ever since your post a few ways back where u admitted that belief in the unverifable is absurd.(and consequently proved my point better than i had imagined). u are the one who is appearing desperate....
like i said b4.... the ball is in your court to provide a rational claim that gives credence to Allah not being invisible and wholy different from my imaginary pet unicorn... u still havent..
as i stated earlier.. being open mided = willing to accept whatever the evidence dictates......
with that understand.. please help "free my mind" some more by providing some reason and evidence to believe in the qualities of the Quran and Allah (that would be any different than my pet invisible unicorn)
P.S... i prayed to my invisible unicorn last nite to help get rid of my migraine headache.... and wouldnt u know it! it worked!
(but then again.. i also was relaxing and taking tylenol at the same time)
next time, i will try another unverifiable entity and see what happens....
Timbs
"being open mided = willing to accept whatever the evidence dictates"
it's sad to see even your being "open minded" is attached with bias.
o·pen-mind·ed (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g.../GIF/omacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g.../GIF/prime.gifphttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g.../GIF/schwa.gifn-mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g.../GIF/imacr.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g.../GIF/prime.gifdhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...GIF/ibreve.gifd)
adj. Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.
^ Word!
And, where Timbs stumbles at is when he assumes that the knowledge of God is based on something invisible and un verifiable.
The truth is, Timbs never asked Wamukota X to explain his knowledge before he went about trying to disprove it.
Wamukota said that the God he knows is not invisible and Timbs went on to argue that it is.
To be soo gun ho about "science", it seems that Timbs is quite open to taking things on face value without doing his research and then proclaiming that his initail fallacy proves his point.
That is circular reasoning at it's best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
I see what you are doing. You are using an old-fashioned technique called the Strawman Argument, in which you are taking my arguments out of context, and misrepresenting them and trying to resale them in a weaker form. I have explained to you numerous times that Allah is visible that alone negates any claim that I proved any point of yours. So I have addressed your point as I have done numerous times and you so conveniently ignored. I said that your invisible pink unicorn idea was absurd, and it is. The point of my argument you conveniently ignore is that Allah is visible. Allah is not a spook, a ghost, some type of phantom or apparition. I hope that point is now clear. Now for proof, you said you, "read the Qu'ran vigorously and objectively with no emotional attachment."
What can I say as proof that can compare to what the Qu'ran has already told you? If you didn't get the proof you were looking for in the Qu'ran then surely you will not get proof from a few lines from this web forum.
p.s. Tylenol disrupts the synaptic transfer to the nociceptors which results in numbing of the senses thus allowing you to accept more pain. Your headache was still there you just didn't feel it. Your spook just wanted you to take some drugs. You should know this Professor.
It is against the first law of nature: "self preservation" not to hate. Just like the gazelle hates the cheetah and the little fish hate the shark. Like Wam. showed God hates, also Sod. + Gam. etc... That is why "love thy enemies" is a trick of the devil. Neither God nor beast loves their enemies, why should man? We would all be dead if God loved the devil or devilish things.
Im sorry that I have yet to read the quran but here are a couple of quotes from the Bible, that mention the witnessing of God/Allah.
in KJV, NLT and NIV for comparison ( King James Version, New Living Translation and New International Translation)
And if written documentation is not enough for any of you then why would you believe that the world is a rough spherical shape? why would you then believe that the moon reflects light from the sun? why would you then believe anything at all.
There is no possible way for you as a human being to personaly figure out and experience everything in life for yourself. That is why we have teachers and schools.
Passage Exodus 24:11: (KJV)
11And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
Passage Exodus 24:11: (NIV)
11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
Exodus 24:11: (NLT)
1And though Israel's leaders saw God, he did not destroy them. In fact, they shared a meal together in God's presence!
Passage Genesis 32:30: (KJV)
30And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Passage Genesis 32:30: (NIV)
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, [a] saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.
Passage Genesis 32:30: (NLT)
30Jacob named the place Peniel--"face of God"--for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been spared."
Yea thats cool but I don't take the bible as literal truth. Lots of things in biblical times are just so far off base. How all these god sightings come when the bible was written, but none recently? There were also reports of seeing unicorns in those times but lets be serious.
arguing about theology gets you places....oh wait...
and "whitey" it's a common mistake people make, the bible is a man-made book of philosophy, you're supposed to make connections to your life by reading it and not look at it as scientific fact and real historical evidece. but hey...