Was the God in the BIble some sort of Dr. Jeckyl & Mr. Hide?
454723
Yes !\nabsolutely YES !\n\nIn the hame of \njackyl,\nhide ,\nand the holy guacamole ,\nA M E N !
869145
The men who created God have showed the faults of their intellect and understanding of what was really going on. We have since learned that some of the things that they thought were wrong. They were dummies. So when mistakes are found in the Bible  people will come up with all sorts of self created explanations and excuses. Just look at some of the ridiculous answers they have given here.
808206
A very astute observation.\n\nScripture assures as that God can know all things, but being all powerful certainly he has the ability to refrain from knowing certain things if he so chooses.\n\nThus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Genesis 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”—Genesis 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Nehemiah 9:7, 8; Galatians 4:9.\n\nSelective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”—Genesis 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.
1181193
Ya mean exactly what he looks like? Basically it just says stuff like we were created in his image... in fact, half the Bible's just a metaphor, so we dunno if we can trust it. Yeah, but we were created in his image and stuff. Soooo... he looks like a regular human being, except not so regular.
616431
No, he's a false concept, a misleading one. There is no such thing as a deity. The existence of a god is yet unproved, it's a lie for weak, brainwashed minds.\n\nIt is whatever to you, a kid or a pimple, or I don't care, but the concept is an overrated mythological, fictious character who was given much too much importance.
1134747
If god created us in his image ? He must have been pretty confused . He did not get it right as we are all different.Most of us are ugly and decrepit and crazy Maybe that's why there are so many gods and religions ? Man a god like creature. NEVER
1044224
It's about as true as you too can have partiality from an impartial God, which is a lie since "there is no respect of persons with God", also an oxyMORON with a BAD ending, kinda like Gen 2: 16 -vs- 17 is an oxyMORON with a BAD ending.\n\nTry re-reading the biblical story of Noah, and notice clever Noah did both: "all God commanded" and "all the LORD commanded", and that God and LORD are as "contrary" as 2 and 7; Not to mention "God" never saw both clean and unclean (good and evil), only good. Not to mention "God" is "merciful", not destructive; And merciful to all, not to some only.\n\nTry and get your head around the biblically stated fact such law/grace "things" are an "allegory" in both "covenants": Gal 4, and also a "mystery" to solve in time; so not to be taken literal. \n\nScriptures were written aforetime for our learning: Romans 15:4. But it's NOT plural & contrary "scriptures" that are "inspiried of God"; rather only the singular "script-u-are" of such plural and contrary scriptures that's God inspired: 1Tim 3:16.\n\nAnd consider where doing both all grace and all law got Noah, it got him inducted into the hall of shame of Heb 11, where it flat out notes "these all died" and "received not the promise". For receiving the promise notably comes "after" doing the will of God, which is "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice(slaughter)"; which is given as a go figure (go and learn what it allegorically meaneth) in Mt 9:13; which is to allegory say grace and not law, which is to say truth and not lie.  And the "not" part of what God will and will not have, is notably not then, not now, not ever. For the will of God is the same in both OT & NT: Ps 40:6; Ps 51:16; Hos 6:6; Mt 9:13; Mt 12:7; Heb 10:all. And the end that God declared from the beginning is already written as the end we're to endure unto to be saved(only) by grace(only); since those who mixed rather than comparing spiritual things (law/grace), notably got both saved and destroyed after by their grace and law: Jude 5.\n\nThe "grace" of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.
625427
i am trying to get meaning out of this its certainly informative and perhaps correct that Hitler took a scientific theory and twisted its purposes for his own use..... that is done everyday by groups of people around the world. Doesn't the KKK use the bible to justify their absurd beliefs? Haven't violent horrible atrocities taken place in the name of a god or over christianity vs islam?\nIf your point is that people take ideas and twist them to serve their own purposes then i would say you are correct but if your point is that Darwin was the devil because an evil lunatic twisted his work to be used to justify his evil then i think you would have to say the same about the author of the bible? wouldn't you?
775499
First of all there is no such thing as god.\nSecondly, according to the fictional book that everyone follows it says that God created man in HIS OWN image. Which means that god must have been a murderer, rapist, child abuser, wife beater, gay, etc...
749139
no, he was involved with a guy name Sam\n\nThe Doctor of the Atheist Revolution has spoken !
469470
I think that you are taking the story in Genesis 3 a bit too far, too literally. The fancy word for it is called anthropomorphism, ascribing human attributes and emotions (like fear, intimidation) to a deity.
243031
Reading the responses to your question, you would think God is some kind of crazed trickster. Like an inexperienced parent obsessed with authority, God has to ask questions of His children that He already knows the answer to, while hanging the threat of eternal damnation over their heads. "Come out Adam, come out Eve. Regardless of rather you tell me the truth or not, daddy's going to eternally beat that behind! Are you there? Can you hear me?" I mean, I have a hard time seeing God this way, as this God seems to serve the purpose of people who are obsessed with authoritarian control i.e governments or abusive parents. I can only conclude that the Bible was added to or taken away from, or worse.
1118804
He was the product of a Christian Austrian father and a Jewish Mother, who began to hate jews when a jewish doctor failed to save the life of his mother who died from a cancerous tumor.\n\n  He was deeply involved in the occult and some have speculated that he may have been possessed by a demon.
653458
That's interesting that you ask if they were his pets because of this verse from the book of Job that describes some type of gigantic creature with a Hebrew word whose translation is uncertain and long before the modern term "dinosaur" came into use.\n\nHere God is talking to Job about what He can do and asking Job if he thinks that he can do the same.\n\nJob 41:1  "Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook or press down his tongue with a cord?  (2)  Can you put a rope in his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?  (3)  Will he make many pleas to you? Will he speak to you soft words?  (4)  Will he make a covenant with you to take him for your servant forever?\n\nliwyātān: I. A masculine proper noun meaning Leviathan. It describes a huge indomitable being that God created and whom only He fully comprehends and controls.\n\nA further description God gives of this animal makes it seem like a sea going fire breathing dragon.\n\nJob 41:15  His back is made of rows of shields, shut up closely as with a seal.  (16)  One is so near to another that no air can come between them.  (17)  They are joined one to another; they clasp each other and cannot be separated.  (18)  His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn.  (19)  Out of his mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap forth.  (20)  Out of his nostrils comes forth smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes.  (21)  His breath kindles coals, and a flame comes forth from his mouth.\n\n\nHere's another unknown creature that God asks Job about.\n\nJob 40:15  Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.  (16)  Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.  (17)  He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.  (18)  His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.  (19)  He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.  (20)  Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.  (21)  He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.  (22)  The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.  (23)  Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.  (24)  He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
268897
"Exodus 33: 'evil tidings' from LORD? Moses talked face to face with LORD, but only saw 'back' parts of LORD?"\n\nAre you trying to reconcile Exodus 33 with the Kabbalistic concept of Qlippoth?\n\nWhile its quite normal in most mythological systems for deities to tell humans that they won't survive gazing upon the deity's awesome visage, Qlippoth does make an interesting question here.  Perhaps the suggestion would be that while we try to look YHVH in the face, we are unable to really conceive of it and can only glimpse the "back", the Qlippoth, ie the stuff we don't like so much.  Interesting how akin it is to the way children think of their parents when they're young. Maybe someday humans will mature and be able to see YHVH in a more wholistic fashion.\n\n"Could there be two LORDS to consider, sort out, if there's also mention of the LORD of 'LORDS'?"\n\nIn the translation I'm looking at right now, I don't see the phrase "Lord of Lords" used in Ex 33.  However, when it does come up its referring to one or both of two things: The supremacy of YHVH in the pre-Abrahamic Judaic pantheon (before Abraham made his covenant with YHVH, the Jews were polytheistic and YHVH was one deity among many), and/or the supremacy of YHVH as a heavenly Lord to earthly Lords.\n\n"Which 'things' are an 'allegory' and 'mystery'."\n\nThere's no allegory in this chapter.  And, for me at least, the Bible in its entirety can be understood as a Mystery if one chooses to see it that way.\n\n"Why did story of Noah's Ark mention God and LORD, who notably gave Noah contradicting commandments?"\n\nThe commands aren't really contradictory: They don't "undo" each other.  So its not like there are two entities here giving opposite commands to Noah and using him as a pawn in some secret hidden war.  God doesn't say "save the animals" only to have Lord come back and say "don't save the animals."  There's just a confusion over number, which I consider being a result of bad editing - something that's bound to happen when a text is scribed, re-scribed, redacted, translated, etc. ad nauseum over the course of roughly 6000 years.
811412
Isn't this the same logic used to deny the God of the Bible?
393993
God never said that. There's no such thing as God. Someone wrote that while most likely high on weed and thought it would be a good laugh.. 'ha ha, that'll scare the crap out of them, fools' ... Unfortunately, he didn't realise at the time people would take the fairy story book so literally so the jokes actually on him.