# Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Nature of God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885 "2005-11-13T20:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/121 "2005-11-27T13:35:12Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > **Monavis said:** > I haven’t been following this thread. (it makes my head hurt) But…The OT doesn’t support the notion that God is personally omnipresent. There is a distintion to be made between being all knowing and all powerful (and therefore able to be aware of all things in all places) and being “everywhere.” The bible doesn’t support an omnipresent God, and he is said to reside in the heavens. > > I would ask for a cite as to the foundation of your argument, but if God exists it would be unknowable to humans. If God is a [spirit] person (albeit the Sovereign of the universe) than there is in fact boundaries to _his person._ (To the extent a spirit person’s boundaries can be indentified & measured) > > As to the Judeo-Christian God, the bible indicates that there is no boundary to his _knowledge_ or _power._ However, there is nothing to support your statement “There can be no boundries to God and such a God could have nothing outside itself.” The problem is that statement is the foundation of the rest of your conclusions. I haven’y read the thread, and I don’t if we’re talking about a vanilla plain wrapper god, or the super-duper one that the Jews/Christians follow, but…if _that’s_ the one we’re talking about, the bible —and God’s own words in the bible—would contradict your reasonings. There are no God’s own words, Just what humans said God said, the people that I know have been taught that their God was everywhere, If such a God were everywhere then there would be no boundries. The Psalmist says" Even if I go into hell you are there", an implication that this particular God would have no boundries. The only thing that can be every where at the same time is what exists. Nothing can be outside of what ever exists.It would be non existent. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/122 "2005-11-27T15:23:57Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I agree with Einstein, He thought of the word “God” to mean…’ What ever exists’ > > I do not think Existence needs worship and in that sense to me God is a word people use for the unexplained. > > What one can think they know about a God or it’s nature came from people who lived generations ago, and they passed on what they believed, not what they know. > > . . .the religions that say God is everywhere, would imply that God then must be all that Exists. > > I am saying my translation of the “word” God just means Existence . . . **Monavis** , we’ve got your opinion of the meaning of the _word_ “God” pretty clearly now. Respectfully, I ask your view of God. “Don’t know” is of course an allowed and repectable answer. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/123 "2005-11-27T16:41:04Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > There are no God’s own words, Just what humans said God said, the people that I know have been taught that their God was everywhere, If such a God were everywhere then there would be no boundries. The Psalmist says" Even if I go into hell you are there", an implication that this particular God would have no boundries. The only thing that can be every where at the same time is what exists. Nothing can be outside of what ever exists.It would be non existent. > > Monavis The whole of the bible—it’s words, thrust, context and continuity do **not** support an omnipresent God. A true understanding (and this is for a non-believer or believer!) cannot be had on a message board–nor can it be done by casually listening to “…the people that I know have been taught that their God was everywhere, …” It is also quite easy—with both good intention and not----to quote scripture and have it mean anything you want it to mean. That breads the semi-nihilistic view that the bible is so contradictory and so open to varied intrepatations that is essentially unknowable. But it is uknowable only to the extent that biblical ignorance is pandmemic, and to the extent there is knowledge it is garnered is measures that guarantee intellectual and spiritua malnourishment. Why take up the arduous task of reading the bible when Asimov, Lewis and a gaggle of others—who sit like patrons on crowded CTA train—have done it already, and are waiting for you at Barnes & Noble? The scrpiture you cited does not indicate that God is omnipresent. (for those intersted I believe the scrpiture that **Monavis** partially quoted was **Ps 139:8**.) Here is the whole chapter: **(Amplified Bible)** > [@](#): > > Psalms 130:1-24: " 1O LORD, you have searched me [thoroughly] and have known me. 2You know my downsitting and my uprising; You understand my thought afar off.(A) 3You sift and search out my path and my lying down, and You are acquainted with all my ways. 4For there is not a word in my tongue [still unuttered], but, behold, O Lord, You know it altogether.(B) 5You have beset me and shut me in–behind and before, and You have laid Your hand upon me. 6Your [infinite] knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high above me, I cannot reach it. > 7Where could I go from Your Spirit? Or where could I flee from Your presence? > 8If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol (the place of the dead), behold, You are there.(C) 9If I take the wings of the morning or dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 10Even there shall Your hand lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me. 11If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me and the night shall be [the only] light about me, 12Even the darkness hides nothing from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You.(D) 13For You did form my inward parts; You did knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14I will confess and praise You for You are fearful and wonderful and for the awful wonder of my birth! Wonderful are Your works, and that my inner self knows right well. 15My frame was not hidden from You when I was being formed in secret [and] intricately and curiously wrought [as if embroidered with various colors] in the depths of the earth [a region of darkness and mystery]. 16Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Your book all the days [of my life] were written before ever they took shape, when as yet there was none of them. 17How precious and weighty also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them!(E) 18If I could count them, they would be more in number than the sand. When I awoke, [could I count to the end] I would still be with You. 19If You would [only] slay the wicked, O God, and the men of blood depart from me–(F) 20Who speak against You wickedly, Your enemies who take Your name in vain!(G) 21Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You? And am I not grieved and do I not loathe those who rise up against You? 22I hate them with perfect hatred; they have become my enemies. 23Search me [thoroughly], O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! 24And see if there is any wicked or hurtful way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Does this account support an omnipresent God? _No!_ It is a song composed by a grieving David. The poetic language is unmistakable. He is simply saying that there is nowhere that David could go----heaven, hell, flying like a bird, in his mother’s womb—that God would be either “blind” to David, or “unaware” of David’s presence/plight/condition etc. It is a poem to his God. You quoted **Ps 139:8.** What do the preceding 7 verses say? Do they support an omnipresent God? **(The Mesage Bible)** > [@](#): > > \*1GOD, investigate my life; get all the facts firsthand. > > ``` > 2I'm an open book to you; > > even from a distance, you know what I'm thinking. > > 3You know when I leave and when I get back; > > I'm never out of your sight. > > 4You know everything I'm going to say > > before I start the first sentence. > > 5I look behind me and you're there, > > then up ahead and you're there, too-- > > your reassuring presence, coming and going. > > 6This is too much, too wonderful-- > > I can't take it all in! > > ``` > > 7Is there anyplace I can go to avoid your Spirit? > > ``` > to be out of your sight?* > > ``` The 139th Psalm shows that God’s knowledge and awareness are omnipresent. (as the 7 verses above show) It does not say----unless you impute meaning that the author didn’t say----that God _Himself_ is omnipresent----just simply that He is all-knowing, all-searching, all-aware, and all-powerful. This chapter, taken in context with the other Psalms locally, and the whole of the bible globally, does not support an omnipresent God. Many people have notions of God (like perhaps the people who you talked to) that God is “everywhere”, or “in our hearts”, or in nature etc. they’re often intricate and compelling. But they do not have a biblical basis. You obviously have given great consideration to your philosophy. Who am I to say it’s wrong? What I am saying, however, is if the foundation of that philosophy is an understanding of the nature of the Judeo-Christian God, spoken of in the bible, your knowledge is flawed. And so, the conclusions drawn from that are equally flawed. The bible does **not** indicate an omnipresent God. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/124 "2005-11-28T12:25:45Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > The whole of the bible—it’s words, thrust, context and continuity do **not** support an omnipresent God. A true understanding (and this is for a non-believer or believer!) cannot be had on a message board–nor can it be done by casually listening to “…the people that I know have been taught that their God was everywhere, …” > > It is also quite easy—with both good intention and not----to quote scripture and have it mean anything you want it to mean. That breads the semi-nihilistic view that the bible is so contradictory and so open to varied intrepatations that is essentially unknowable. But it is uknowable only to the extent that biblical ignorance is pandmemic, and to the extent there is knowledge it is garnered is measures that guarantee intellectual and spiritua malnourishment. Why take up the arduous task of reading the bible when Asimov, Lewis and a gaggle of others—who sit like patrons on crowded CTA train—have done it already, and are waiting for you at Barnes & Noble? > > The scrpiture you cited does not indicate that God is omnipresent. (for those intersted I believe the scrpiture that **Monavis** partially quoted was **Ps 139:8**.) Here is the whole chapter: **(Amplified Bible)** > Does this account support an omnipresent God? _No!_ It is a song composed by a grieving David. The poetic language is unmistakable. He is simply saying that there is nowhere that David could go----heaven, hell, flying like a bird, in his mother’s womb—that God would be either “blind” to David, or “unaware” of David’s presence/plight/condition etc. It is a poem to his God. You quoted **Ps 139:8.** What do the preceding 7 verses say? Do they support an omnipresent God? **(The Mesage Bible)** > > The 139th Psalm shows that God’s knowledge and awareness are omnipresent. (as the 7 verses above show) It does not say----unless you impute meaning that the author didn’t say----that God _Himself_ is omnipresent----just simply that He is all-knowing, all-searching, all-aware, and all-powerful. This chapter, taken in context with the other Psalms locally, and the whole of the bible globally, does not support an omnipresent God. > > Many people have notions of God (like perhaps the people who you talked to) that God is “everywhere”, or “in our hearts”, or in nature etc. they’re often intricate and compelling. But they do not have a biblical basis. > > You obviously have given great consideration to your philosophy. Who am I to say it’s wrong? What I am saying, however, is if the foundation of that philosophy is an understanding of the nature of the Judeo-Christian God, spoken of in the bible, your knowledge is flawed. And so, the conclusions drawn from that are equally flawed. > > The bible does **not** indicate an omnipresent God. I do not consider the Bible as an indicator of the Nature of God, if God is a being and in Existence one can only guess at His nature. My point is that there are many ways to think of what the ‘word’ God means.The translation of the Bible I used, Psalm 138 verse 7 is" Whither shall I go from thy spirit? If I ascend into Heaven, thou art there: If I decend into Hell thou art present."This suggests that God is everywhere. The many ways to translate the Bible has been the reason for many different belief systems. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/125 "2005-11-28T14:14:55Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I do not consider the Bible as an indicator of the Nature of God, if God is a being and in Existence one can only guess at His nature. > > My point is that there are many ways to think of what the ‘word’ God means.The translation of the Bible I used, Psalm 138 verse 7 is" Whither shall I go from thy spirit? If I ascend into Heaven, thou art there: If I decend into Hell thou art present."This suggests that God is everywhere. > > The many ways to translate the Bible has been the reason for many different belief systems. > > Monavis Frankly, this is an anemic response. To begin with, why quote the bible when you do not consider it a valid ‘indicator?’ And then you re-quote the 139th Psalm completely out of context. :smack: There are indeed many belief systems. Many of them, while good intentioned, are borne of ignorance and the scantiness of knowledge. If your philosophy has the bible as it’s foundation, I would encourage you to read it for yourself. I am certain you will find that your logic is flawed and the bible does **not** support an omnipresent god. If it doesn’t, I would encourage you to stop you to stop quoting it. Why quote something you don’t understand, and don’t believe anyway? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/126 "2005-11-29T12:09:20Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Frankly, this is an anemic response. > > To begin with, why quote the bible when you do not consider it a valid ‘indicator?’ > > And then you re-quote the 139th Psalm completely out of context. :smack: > > There are indeed many belief systems. Many of them, while good intentioned, are borne of ignorance and the scantiness of knowledge. > > If your philosophy has the bible as it’s foundation, I would encourage you to read it for yourself. I am certain you will find that your logic is flawed and the bible does **not** support an omnipresent god. > > If it doesn’t, I would encourage you to stop you to stop quoting it. Why quote something you don’t understand, and don’t believe anyway? The quotes I gave you came right from the Bible I had in front of me. If I would take the whole Bible as it is written there would be so much conflict one could translate what ever one wanted it to be. You are using a different Bible so the translation is different. I am using an old translation which was taught for years. I understand quite well; I do not use the Bible for my personal beliefs, but the translation of the one I have, is the one I use. I have read the Bible through at least 24 times in my life time, I used to read it every day, that is why I quit believing it was the word of A God. I then studied history, archeology,and various religions. The word God to me doesn’t mean a supernatural being, creator, or heavenly Father. I respect the right of anyone to believe as they wish as long as they do not harm others. My point is trying to understand the people who disagree with me. I am not trying to convert anyone. there are many religions that teach that God is everywhere. I believe the Catholic church teaches that. Catholics and other people that I know who use the Bible also believe that God is everywhere. The nature of God is what ever people believe it to be. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/127 "2005-11-29T13:08:20Z")
**monavis said:** > [@](#): > > The quotes I gave you came right from the Bible I had in front of me. If I would take the whole Bible as it is written there would be so much conflict one could translate what ever one wanted it to be. You are using a different Bible so the translation is different. I am using an old translation which was taught for years. _ **Nonsense.** _ Using the translation _you_ cited (which incidentally you didn’t cite!) you still misquoted it! Most bibles do a fairly good job of rendering the author’s words. The ones I cited were common versions, and they do not differ from the one you quoted and did not cite. > [@](#): > > I understand quite well; I do not use the Bible for my personal beliefs, but the translation of the one I have, is the one I use. I have read the Bible through at least 24 times in my life time, I used to read it every day, that is why I quit believing it was the word of A God. I then studied history, archeology,and various religions. The word God to me doesn’t mean a supernatural being, creator, or heavenly Father. I respect the right of anyone to believe as they wish as long as they do not harm others. _ **Baloney.** _ I don’t believe you for one second. The average adult reads at about 175 words/min. If you read for 20 minutes a day (3-5 chapters), _every single day of the year_, it would take you **a year** to read the bible cover to cover. This is the 4th or 5th time I have had someone tell me that they’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times. When challenged, in every single instance, they’ve come back with silly qualifiers; “It was casual”, “Many years ago,”“When I was a child”, and one of my favorites, “Yea but I was a speed reader…” _24 times?_ Is there a bridge you wish me to buy? :smack: > [@](#): > > My point is trying to understand the people who disagree with me. I am not trying to convert anyone. there are many religions that teach that God is everywhere. I believe the Catholic church teaches that. Catholics and other people that I know who use the Bible also believe that God is everywhere. > > The nature of God is what ever people believe it to be. Whatever “many religions teach” , if they are of the Judeo-Christian flavor I would imagine they would be able to show this conclusively from their bible—no matter which translation. Given that you have read it 24 times through (which at 20 minutes a day, would take you _24 years_) you are perhaps the most knowledegable person the SDMB has ever seen as far as the bible is concerned. Choose any translation you wish. We’ll stick with that translation. Show me from the bible, that God is everywhere. _Show me._ ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/128 "2005-11-29T13:27:57Z")
**Correction** There is roughly 800,000 words in the bible, depending which bible you read. At 175 words/min it would take about **17-20 minutes per day,** 5 days a week, to read the bible in a year. (not every single day) If a person read every single day, it would require **12-15 minutes per day** to read the bible in a year. Of course, the bible isn’t the easiest reading material—particularly if the person chooses the\*\* KJV.\*\* If a person wishes to read with a high degree of comprehension, it is likely that some passages may require more time and effort, and thereby reduce the rate in which someone can read. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/129 "2005-11-29T14:22:57Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > [_ **Baloney.** _ I don’t believe you for one second. Don’t call **Monavis** a liar, **dog**. This is unacceptable rudeness, as well as unsupported wild speculation. **Monavis** is over 70 years old, which makes your demonstration of the unlikelihood of reading the bible 24 times rather weak. Apologise. > [@Monavis](#): > > The nature of God is what ever people believe it to be. On this we must differ. Believing doesn’t make it so. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/130 "2005-11-29T14:44:29Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Don’t call **Monavis** a liar, **dog**. This is unacceptable rudeness, as well as unsupported wild speculation. **Monavis** is over 70 years old, which makes your demonstration of the unlikelihood of reading the bible 24 times rather weak. Apologise.On this we must differ. Believing doesn’t make it so. I did not call him a liar. I told him I did not believe him. That is not semantics. It may be rather direct, but it is respectful to him. We are in GD—it is expected that ideas and opinions will clash. It is simply not the time that it would require to read the bible 24 times cover to cover that had me dubious. I have read many of Monavis’s posts, and in my experience a person with those credentials would have _utilized_ this knowledge to offer more substantive posts. His posting as to the bible’s contents seem to belie the substantial knowledge that reading the bible _24 times_—cover to cover—would have afforded him. It’s worth noting that his age has little to do with it. Certainly someone 70+ has had more time to read. But it is _the substance of his posts_ that will earn him credibility on the subject at hand, _not his age._ I have no doubt of the knowledge gained by bible reading when I read **FriarTed’s** or **Polycarp’s** posts. But I do not see that level of knowledge in Monavis’s posts **at all.** _(or anything close to it)_ You may be upset, but _ **Monavis** _ posted his credentials. it should not surprise him or you if they are challenged. I will say this though: **I apologize** to **Monavis** , and to **you** if you were offended. It is not my _intent_ to offend. But I will reiterate that I did **not** call him a liar; and, I do **not** believe he’s read the bible 24 times. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/131 "2005-11-29T15:49:58Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > But I will reiterate that I did **not** call him a liar; and, I do **not** believe he’s read the bible 24 times. This is precisely the sort of comment that makes GD so unbearable at times. You are saying that he’s lying. How is that not calling him a liar? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/132 "2005-11-29T19:36:57Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > This is precisely the sort of comment that makes GD so unbearable at times. > > You are saying that he’s lying. How is that not calling him a liar? I find GD unbearable at times too, for different reasons; not the least of which is the learned bible students and scholars who are either unable, or unwilling to use the bible in a discussion that \*involves the bible. \* **I have aplogized to Monavis,** as it was not my intent to offend him. (Nor is it my intent to coddle him here) But I am not playing some verbal sleight of hand. To answer your question; for me to know he was lying it would _require_ me to know what he was thinking; to know he _intended_ to make a statement he _knew_ was untrue. I don’t know that. Is he a liar? I don’t know, and within the context of our discussion I don’t care. Perhaps his version of _" I have read the Bible through at least 24 times in my life time,…"_ (his exact words) differs from mine. Maybe he did in a most casual way. Maybe he essentially skimmed it. Maybe it was within the context of many years of sitting in front of his priest/pastor in a religious services setting. Maybe it was listening to years of live, recorded, or television sermons. Maybe he is mistaken. (hard as they may seem to be)\* Maybe\*…he’s lying. I don’t know. And while I have been direct at times, I do not have a history of calling people names, **ever.** **Monavis** ventured here on his own. He posted a partial scripture, that in my view was horribly out of context—both within the immediate scrpitures that surrounded it—and within the context of the bible as a whole. _He didn’t even cite the scripture!_ I posted not just the scripture, but the whole chapter, and offered it’s complete context. When I pressed him, **he** offered his credentials, and it would appear they were offered in lieu if a more substantive response. Given the nature and substance of his posts on the topic I am left unconvinced. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/133 "2005-11-29T20:09:12Z")
I would like to point out something that, to me at least, is significant. People’s impressions are made here. People are educated here. SDMB’s motto, which I presume is not entirely tongue in cheek, seeks to reduce ignorance. I have also seen may comments here—many of them----where people have lavished praise on this place for the knowledge here and what they’ve learned here. Credentials are a way of establishing credibilty, especially since we are mostly strangers. If **QtM** (who I believe is a doctor) makes a statement about medical issues, I believe there would be a tendency to take him at his word. Similarly, I believe **Bricker** is an attorney. (I might be wrong…) I would certainly see his opinion on legal matters as being credible. (while not offering either man blind credulity) **Monavis** has been critical of the bible, and has offered his insights as to what the bible has to say about the nature of God. That’s cool. And, he has offered the us that he has read the bible 24 times. To me, that should offer him some up-front credibilty—particularly to those wholly unacquainted with the bible. I am not a bible scholar. I haven’t read it 24 times, cover to cover, and I’ve never met anyone who has. I am a bible student. (albeit a serious student) But I would be equally dubious of **QtM** ’s credentials if he offered the type of medical advice here as the type **Monavis** offers on the topic of the bible. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/134 "2005-11-30T11:31:01Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > **monavis said:** > > _ **Nonsense.** _ Using the translation _you_ cited (which incidentally you didn’t cite!) you still misquoted it! Most bibles do a fairly good job of rendering the author’s words. The ones I cited were common versions, and they do not differ from the one you quoted and did not cite. > _ **Baloney.** _ I don’t believe you for one second. The average adult reads at about 175 words/min. If you read for 20 minutes a day (3-5 chapters), _every single day of the year_, it would take you **a year** to read the bible cover to cover. This is the 4th or 5th time I have had someone tell me that they’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times. When challenged, in every single instance, they’ve come back with silly qualifiers; “It was casual”, “Many years ago,”“When I was a child”, and one of my favorites, “Yea but I was a speed reader…” > > _24 times?_ Is there a bridge you wish me to buy? :smack: > Whatever “many religions teach” , if they are of the Judeo-Christian flavor I would imagine they would be able to show this conclusively from their bible—no matter which translation. > > Given that you have read it 24 times through (which at 20 minutes a day, would take you _24 years_) you are perhaps the most knowledegable person the SDMB has ever seen as far as the bible is concerned. Choose any translation you wish. We’ll stick with that translation. Show me from the bible, that God is everywhere. _Show me._ You do not have to believe that I read the Bible that many times but I have people who can prove I did, (The book is read to pieces)I am Far more than 25 years of age,I read many books a year. The Bible I cite is a Catholic Bible I am not sure of the spelling but it is a Duay Version that was given to me in the 50’s by a friend. If there is new translations perhaps they are better, but her church used this translation for before the Reformation. The Catholic Church (as she stated) uses the 138th Psalm to mean God is every where. Part of their religious teaching is ,“Where is God? God is everywhere” If what you believe God to be he is not a very big God and is a part of Existence as you and I are. By the way, I read far more than 20 minuets per day,I can read a novel in a day. When I was a freshman in high school I read 250 books. I still read a book a week. If I do not put it down I can read it in several hours. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/135 "2005-11-30T11:47:17Z")
I thank Rain dog for the defense of me,I am a she, not a he. I do not feel offended by comments made by anyone differing from me. I learn from many people. I do not think less of them for not accepting my beliefs. I do not believe the Bible is the Word Of a God,but there is a lot of good to learn from it. there were many learned people in Biblical times and before that, and many of their ideas are good ones. If some one translates a word or passage, different than I do, I believe it is their right. I do not think they are stupid or lying. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/136 "2005-11-30T13:40:01Z")
Well…as I said, I apologize if I offended you, and I apologize for getting your gender wrong. :o ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/137 "2005-12-01T12:13:07Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Well…as I said, I apologize if I offended you, and I apologize for getting your gender wrong. :o I accept your apology,but I do not think I need one from you. I was not offended. I know what I know and believe what I believe, What some one thinks of me does not diminish me, nor does their praise make me better; I am just what I am. You had no way to know my gender. I do not claim to be an authority on any thing,except maybe cooking.( even that there are people better than I on the subject). Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/138 "2005-12-01T15:59:09Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I know what I know and believe what I believe . . . Good - knowledge and belief clearly distinguished. Contradicted, though by this . . . > [@Monavis](#): > > The nature of God is what ever people believe it to be. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/139 "2005-12-02T12:41:56Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Good - knowledge and belief clearly distinguished. Contradicted, though by this . . . Since one cannot prove God to be, then one only believes through faith, since no one can really know the nature of God, they go by what they believe is his nature. Some say one thing about God others another. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885/140 "2005-12-02T15:22:41Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Some say one thing about God others another. Some say nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-nature-of-god/330885.md?page=8)