Do you think a study the many gods that existed since concept of gods began would help give a better understanding of God of the bible?

Well it appeared you were being a bit condescending but I guess you can be forgiven. 

"condescending"? Nah. Light years away even from any condescension inherent in "I guess you can be forgiven"

If a person keeps asking about an issue, again and again, the natural inclination of any caring person, you included, I'm sure, would be to try and find one way or another of helping. If one's best endeavours are of no help one feels sorry about that and wishes the person success in their quest. Where's the condescension in that?

I don't think I am 'crying for help' as you put it. How do you see 'barriers i've erected'? I simply have alternatives to believing in God/supernatural that I may discuss. Not barriers to anything. 

'crying for help' is not meant to be taken literally, of course. It's just another way of saying "a person keeps asking about an issue, again and again" [that's from my last post above. Maybe I should have used that phrase instead of the metaphor] 

similarly 'barriers i've erected' is obviously not literal either. It's just how someone might feel after repeated attempts "to try and find one way or another of helping. If one's best endeavours are of no help" [that too is from my last post above. Maybe I should have put it that way instead of using the metaphor]

" I simply have alternatives to believing in God/supernatural that I may discuss. Not barriers to anything." >>>> first that's not the sense in which I used the word "barrier" as explained above. Secondly my comment, made in one of my posts above, that "You're quite puzzling and seemingly full of conflicts" is apparent here again. How can believing in clone gods and miracles be "alternatives to believing in God/supernatural"? Thirdly let's take "barrier" in the sense you have used it. It is obvious, don't you think, that once we adopt one belief system, then that belief system DOES become a barrier to other, alternative belief systems. An alternative belief system would now need to be at least more convincing than our adopted one for us to remove it [the barrier] in favour of the alternative one.

Hope my explanations have helped clarify where I'm coming from.

The clone God idea is just the 2% possibility that I think God may exist. 
I don't mean miracles in my case as divine intervention since I doubt the existence of God. 
About 2 years ago I began having chest pain, my friend insisted I go to emergency -MRI scan showed no cause for chest pain but did discover a tumor in my right lung -opposite side from pain area. First stage cancer, removed by surgery.  If not for the chest pains cancer may have spread and become terminal. That was the last time an unexpected event saved me from worse problems. Never determined cause of chest pain.

Do you think there is some sort of conflict in experiencing  'miracles' but not believing in a supernatural God?  This post was edited by Kittigate at February 27, 2018 7:47 PM MST

there you go again. "the 2% possibility that I think God may exist." and "I doubt the existence of God." So, though you keep denying it, there is something in your thinking on the issue of God/spirituality that needs your attention. However, it won't happen if you keep denying it.

"Do you think there is some sort of conflict in experiencing  'miracles' but not believing in a supernatural God?" >>> There certainly must be conflict in believing in miracles but not in the supernatural or in supernatural activity, because a miracle is a supernatural activity. It is supernatural in the sense that it transcends nature or the laws of nature that normally apply. God is a separate issue.

The sense of "miracle" is very difficult to peel away from the person who's at the centre of the "miracle". To the sceptical onlooker of a "miracle" like yours it is just an extremely rare combination of circumstances. But to you, at the centre of it, there will always be the whys, for example, why you, why the mysterious pain, why at that stage, and so on......??? Perhaps "someone" IS tapping on the shoulders of those who go through those sort of experiences. Who can deny that with absolute certainty? You said that you've had more than one "miracle" experience. Did you watch the video clip I posted and compare his reactions to yours?

Yours is no doubt a genuine experience and one feels happy for you reading about it, and one feels like reading about more such cases, unlike the many "faith healing" stories one hears about.

'Bout a half dozen experiences where an unexpected turn of events saved me from a lot of problems that I can recall -those are my 'miracles'. This kind of experience is not evidence of a divine intervention, same as God not answering prayers for healing is not evidence of God non-existence. I just find that overall there is sufficient reason to say that need for a supernatural God all-powerful all knowing creator is not required for existence. I know some people experience some sort of miracle thing and become all religeous because of that. I'very learned that when you want or need a miracle to happen it never does -always seems like occurring when not expecting something. Like I said earlier the only kind of God I could believe in is a God that helps me along sometimes the way a God should be; not a God that needs to be worshipped and prayed to or thanked; those are a carry-over from ancient pagan customs.

And by the way I might as well add -i've experienced 'unmiracles' too things that were damaging for me like becoming addicted to alcohol and wrecking a portion of my life or a hearing impairment that makes it uncomfortable for me to socialize much; i can accept the good as well as the bad. This post was edited by Kittigate at February 27, 2018 9:57 AM MST

Let's continue just exchanging, exploring and questioning ideas.

1. Both of your statements "This kind of experience ["miracle"] is not evidence of a divine intervention" and "God not answering prayers for healing is not evidence of God non-existence." I accept as true. However, they're not both the same. The second case doesn't leave us with an unanswered question like "if not God then who or what?" while the first one definitely does.

2. "I just find that overall there is sufficient reason to say that need for a supernatural God all-powerful all knowing creator is not required for existence" God being "supernatural ...all-powerful all knowing" are not an issue at this stage, so what you're asserting can be boiled down to "...there is sufficient reason to say that ... a .... creator is not required for existence". What is this sufficient reason? Doesn't human experience and observation tell us that a] things don't happen or come into being spontaneously and randomly without reason or causation and that b] whenever something happens or comes into being there is almost always a reason or causation behind it?

3. "I know some people experience some sort of miracle thing and become all religeous because of that." >>> true, even though the number of people who come into religion because of such experiences mus be extremely small, that kind of experience might nevertheless make them think that may be life as a human being has more than material dimensions to it to distinguish it from life as any other animal species on earth. Moreover, the idea that humans are the the most intelligent and most creative beings in existence in the immense vastness of this universe seems quite preposterous. If beings of more or equal intelligence and creativity in another part of the universe, cannot be ruled out, despite there having been no shadow of evidence so far, even of an indirect kind, then how can we rule out a being of higher intelligence and creativity outside our universe?

4. However, that's not a question for you, because you already allow the possibility of God ["the only kind of God I could believe in..."] In that sense you are a theist. A major difference between you and other theists is the severe limitations you have put on God making Him "a God that helps me along sometimes the way a God should be" What's the basis of that limitation? You have problems with God being the creator, or stipulating laws by which creation can happen, but see no problems with Him somehow singling you out from the billions just to help you along sometimes.

5. If God is defined as being beyond any need, as He is in some religions, then He obviously does not need to be worshipped, does not need to be prayed to or thanked. To worship, pray to and thank are the needs not of God but of those whose concept of God is that of a being who is worthy of being worshipped, prayed to and thanked. The need to thank or feel thankful is innate in us. When someone does us the slightest of favours [open the door for us, for example, or gesture us to take a seat] we feel a need to thank.

I think Buddha was wise to say 'beginnings should be left for science to determine'. The Law of the Conservation of Energy/matter indicates that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed;  existence is infinite in time so does supersede the bible law of creation. No need for a Creator. You can google 'big bounce theory' for additional information. 
At the beginning of this discussion I said every individual gets their own personal God clone to help them along -not just myself. 

Science is not equipped to measure the metaphysics and also what science investigates is not just for the scientific community it is done on everybody's behalf and for the better information of humanity as a whole. You demonstrate that in your very second sentence by talking about science.

"Existence is infinite in time" appears to run counter to the popular Big Bang Theory. Also "the bible law of creation" is put forward only by those who believe in the Bible. Not all religions believe in the Bible.

The conclusion "No need for a Creator" seems to run counter to "Buddha was wise to say 'beginnings should be left for science to determine'." Unless you are announcing their determination that there is "No need for a Creator"

I think I have been attentive to your posts and commented on almost everything you've said, including your idea that people get "their own personal God clone to help them along"

You, by contrast, have skipped quite a few of the points I have made. I also thought we'd be exchanging, exploring and questioning ideas in some depth to see where we get to, but I guess I was wrong there too. Maybe some other time.

Right. 

Great!

It is standard condescender thinking, any disagreement or objection is interpreted as a "cry for help" and should be re answered by a renewed attempt to sell the dogma. I am sure you have noticed the same mechanism in proselytizing Christians.

Ah -yes.

Let's read a little bit:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

That "furnace of earth" is meaningless. There is no such thing. We consider a concordance and find that "furnace" is singular and "of earth" is plural. So we correct the verse to agree with that:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace. [Words] of earth, purified seven times.

Ok, so the bible is not written in dark sayings, it is written in human languages so we can understand it, correctly translated. But the words are purified. So we expect to find some sort of purification here and there. The new definitions are expressed by the context of the first usage. With that in mind we look at Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.

Does that define "beginning"? People who ask what was before that are just playing word games. If there were something before that, that would not be the beginning. And if any other word had been first in the bible, Psalm 12:6 would have been a lie.

The word "god" is Hebrew Elohim, a plural. Ok, if Queen Elizabeth can call herself "we", I guess God can do the same. This is the first usage, so Elohim is defined as the creator. That is important to remember when other names of God are used. It's like if your daddy is also the sheriff. There are times when you might want to talk to your daddy, but not to the sheriff.

This is the first usage of earth: it was created in the beginning. No "six days of creation", that is bullsnot. It was in the beginning.

That is a lot of knowledge to be gained just from reading two verses. And we did not need any sources other than the usual concordance entries. And we can see that almost everything you ever heard from random preachers is bullsnot: they don't bother to read what they claim to preach.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Jewels.
You are playing out some fallacies that are readily apparent to a veteran unbeliever such as myself.
First: we see the old, “The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible”. Yes, much can be drawn from the book that touts it own veracity, yet contradictions exist.You mention Gen. 1, it is not in lockstep with Gen, 2 in detailing the steps of Creation, for example. Accept both? The accounts of the “nativity” are quite different in the two gospels that describe it. There are hundreds of such inconsistencies. Pure words, hmmm. 

Second, you are doing exactly what you accuse the “random preachers” of: Interpreting scripture to suit your point. This is how 40,000 competing sects of Christians grew from the same source. I’ve often read your posts that admonish other sources for not getting their story straight, because they (in your view) misconstrue the texts. But you assert that you have it right. They all feel the same about their position. Who to believe. Or do we look for ourselves? 

Third, and more importantly to the Q here: to assert all there is worth knowing about any such broad topic lies within one set of (allegorical) texts, is tantamount to enforcing ignorance. There was a time when the Bible was forbidden to laypeople, the printing press eventually changed that. There was a time when the entire universe revolved around the earth, Copernicus changed that. He brought real evidence. There was a time when it seemed likely that we were scratched from the soil and formed intact by the hand of a deity, Darwin changed that. His evidence is the basis of biology. 

Had we as a species held to not investigating beyond the purview of one set of allegorical and uncorroborated assertions, locked into this or that rehash of the same old material, we’d still be in the dark ages. 

This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 23, 2018 4:31 AM MST

Gotta remember that Chapters and verses didn't exist when the Bible was written. Do you think that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 had the same author that got confused or two different authors?

Consider the context as brought out in this part of an article:

Book: God's  Word (GM)

Chapter 7

[Different Viewpoints

EDIT: 
In relation to two different "The accounts of the “nativity” are different in the two gospels that describe it", wouldn't it have been easy for Matthew and Luke to get together and corroborate their stories if they were really just stories? Or perhaps one to copy the other? Again, gotta dig a little deeper and consider the context of the time and culture of the Bible writers.

[Why do Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts about Jesus’ early life differ?
▪ Matthew’s account about the events related to Jesus’ birth and early life differs somewhat from Luke’s account because the Gospel writers told the events from different perspectives.
Matthew’s account focuses on events that involved Joseph. It relates Joseph’s initial reaction to Mary’s pregnancy, his dream in which an angel explained the situation, and the acceptance of that explanation. (Matt. 1:19-25) Matthew goes on to tell about Joseph’s dream in which an angel urged him to flee to Egypt, his flight with his family, his dream in which an angel told him to return to the land of Israel, his return, and his decision to settle his family in Nazareth. (Matt. 2:13, 14, 19-23) In the opening chapters of Matthew’s Gospel, Joseph’s name is mentioned eight times, but Mary’s, only four.
On the other hand, Luke’s account is much more focused on Mary. It includes Mary’s being visited by the angel Gabriel, her visit to her relative Elizabeth, and Mary’s expression of praise to Jehovah. (Luke 1:26-56) Luke also mentions Simeon’s words to Mary regarding Jesus’ future sufferings. Even in the account of her family’s visit to the temple when Jesus was 12 years old, Luke quotes the words of Mary, not those of Joseph. Luke adds that Mary was deeply affected by all these events. (Luke 2:19, 34, 35, 48, 51) In the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel, Mary’s name is mentioned 12 times, but Joseph’s, only 3. So, then, Matthew describes more of Joseph’s concerns and activities while Luke gives more details about Mary’s role and experiences.
Likewise, the genealogies supplied by the two Gospel writers differ. Matthew traces Joseph’s ancestry and shows that Jesus as Joseph’s adopted son was the legal heir to David’s kingship. Why? Because Joseph was a descendant of King David through the line of David’s son Solomon. (Matt. 1:6, 16) However, Luke evidently traces Mary’s ancestry and shows that Jesus was the natural heir, “according to the flesh,” to David’s kingship. (Rom. 1:3) Why? Because Mary was a descendant of King David through the line of David’s son Nathan. (Luke 3:31) But why does Luke not list Mary in his genealogy as the daughter of Heli, her father? Because official genealogies were generally traced through the men. So when Luke lists Joseph and describes him as the son of Heli, it was understood to mean that Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law.—Luke 3:23.
The genealogical lists by Matthew and Luke clearly establish that Jesus was the foretold Messiah. In fact, the truth about Jesus’ genealogy was so well-known that even the Pharisees and Sadducees could not deny it. Today, both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogical records remain a part of the foundation of our faith and a testimony to the sureness of the promises of God.]

This post was edited by texasescimo at February 23, 2018 4:07 AM MST

Please don’t bore me with another of your windy “copy and paste” projects. We will never agree on this, and I don't give any credibility to Biblical scripture at all. 

From my perspective, you are gravely misled, and wasting your time. But then, faith is a salve for that. 

And in our other thread you seemed almost open minded. Sigh

Once again, religion has it backward.
Being open minded enlightened my view to what it is today.
Closed-mindedness is what enforces re-interpreting the same old tripe over and over. 
Zealotry in circular reasoning is a poor substitute for actual Reason. 

I’m done discussing your beliefs. This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 23, 2018 4:57 AM MST

Okay. If you come up with something new other than the same old tripe that is parroted all over the internet like the two supposed creation accounts and the two supposed contradicting geneaologies of Jesus, let me know.

It's amazing that many opposers will often say something like the Gospel writers copied each other in one conversation and then complain that they contradict each other and turn their back on context and reason.

Did you at least know that back then official genealogies were generally traced through the men? Did you know that since the destruction in 70 that Jewish genealogies are traced through women?

I think Tex is a very smart person and it seems he wants everybody to know that; only thing is he can become a bit somewhat annoying -but he does need to feel special I guess.

No Kittigate, I do not think that I am a very smart person. Very simple person. But I have read what I have read and do want to share the knowledge that I have acquired. It's open to every one and no super high intelligence required, just humility and an open mind. Most of what I have learned, I learned with the help of others. Jesus said we can know the truth. We have to pray for Holy Spirit to help our understanding, be humble, read with an open mind, and be willing to let go of any preconceived ideas as we find out that they are not really from the Bible. The Ethiopian Eunuch was humble enough to accept help from Philip and the Beroeans were humble enough to listen to Paul and check the scriptures closely to see if what Paul was saying was so as he reasoned with them from the scriptures.

(Acts 17:2) So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Sometimes we need help like the Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8:26-40) We also need to consult all scriptures on a subject and let scripture interpret scripture.
(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine

(Acts 8:27-31) With that he got up and went, and look! an E·thi·oʹpi·an eunuch, a man who had authority under Can·daʹce, queen of the E·thi·oʹpi·ans, and who was in charge of all her treasure. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and he was returning and was sitting in his chariot, reading aloud the prophet Isaiah. 29 So the spirit said to Philip: “Go over and approach this chariot.” 30 Philip ran alongside and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet, and he said: “Do you actually know what you are reading?” 31 He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him.