God is supposed to be omniscient, but this is contradicted in the bible when he doesn't immediately know that Cain killed Abel. 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he

said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? God should have known already if he truly was omniscient. Discuss.

the bible is full of things like this, and just further proof that there is no god.



</thread>

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

God is supposed to be omniscient, but this is contradicted in the bible when he doesn't immediately know that Cain killed Abel. 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he

said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? God should have known already if he truly was omniscient. Discuss.

God wasn't asking because He didnt know. But to see if Cain knew.

1) Any post that ends in "discuss" should be immediately locked.

2) God could have been giving Cain a chance to come clean and admit what he did.

God did know exactly what happened. He wasn't asking to find out, He was asking to see if Cain would tell the truth. Why do you even ask stupid questions like this?

If he was omniscient, he would have known Cain would lie.

It wasnt the fact that he knew cain would lie. It was that Cain, could have told the truth.

[This message has been edited by bushy (edited 01-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

the bible is full of things like this, and just further proof that there is no god.



</thread>



expand please

I know you didnt read the Bible to get this question because he asked Adam where he was beforehand.

Instead of throwing in arguments from other shit websites bo do yourself good with some porn.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:



expand please

it was more of a sarcastic comment. more and more, i am getting pissed off at people who think that they can disprove the bible by posting a single contradiction, and a crappy one at that.

on a semi-unrelated note

there are 100(0?)'s of contradictions i the bible, and yet people still continue to believe it. that also sickens me.

yeah, he was asking to see if cain was honest..

just like how he asked Adam and eve, why they were hiding in the bush's

[This message has been edited by yoda_me07 (edited 01-26-2006).]

PirateJoe:

it was more of a sarcastic comment. more and more, i am getting pissed off at people who think that they can disprove the bible by posting a single contradiction, and a crappy one at that.

...

there are 100(0?)'s of contradictions i the bible, and yet people still continue to believe it. that also sickens me.

This sounds like material for a Lewis Black skit...

Well, why not, if you can disprove evolution with one quote from a 100-year old textbook?

I'm not trying to disprove the Bible. I'm merely asking questions that I've asked people, and hoping to find some people with enough knowledge to argue with me. Any 'Christian' I've ever really talked to, knows less than I do about the Bible. I don't know much and I don't claim to, but I definitly pwn every Christian I've ever talked to.

If the thing called 'God' was omniscient and all loving, it would have realised that creating several religions, each one having the last word, was an incredibly fucking stupid idea.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Well, why not, if you can disprove evolution with one quote from a 100-year old textbook?

My point was that, immediately following his comment that says that crappy attempts to disprove the Bible by posting a single contradiction, he continues on to put forth the unsupported assertion that there are potentially thousands of contradictions in the Bible, yet doesn't support one.

Not saying he's wrong, just that he shouldn't contradict himself.

In the really old parts of the Bible, the Hebrews had a very anthropomorphic view of their God. Many people still do view him that way because of what they read in their holy book. I'd think that anyone with any sense of reality would understand that if God were real and not a figment of some people's imagination, he wouldn't be like that.

But then you have the problem of people believing in Biblical inerrancy http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

With so many contradictions, the bible is mans ancient attempt to fool the future of humanity into believing there is a god, which sadly; has worked on most people.

If God posted on totse, I'd pwn him so bad.

Where does it say that Yahweh is omniscent?

the hebrew scriptures were for present power and remembering their stories which had been told for at least 500 years before being written down.

it wasn't for the future, but rather the past.

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

God is supposed to be omniscient, but this is contradicted in the bible when he doesn't immediately know that Cain killed Abel. 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he

said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? God should have known already if he truly was omniscient. Discuss.

He didn't ask because He didn't know, He asked because He knew that Cain had killed Abel, and that he was going to try and lie to Him about it.

It was for Cain's benefit, not God's.

quote:Originally posted by yoda_me07:

yeah, he was asking to see if cain was honest..

just like how he asked Adam and eve, why they were hiding in the bush's

You were ALMOST right...you are saying God was "seeing if" Cain was going to be honest, but God is omniscient, so He already knows Cain won't be. You can't imply that He was unaware of Cain's deceptive nature.

The purpose of the questioning was to reveal the depth of Cain's dishonesty, for Cain and the following generations to see.

But you were on the right track.

How do you know what God was doing?

Well?

Why does everyone think that the Hebrew god was omnipotent?

quote:Originally posted by bushy:

It wasnt the fact that he knew cain would lie. It was that Cain, could have told the truth.



Cain couldn't have told the truth because God knew he would ly and God knows everything and can not fail. Thus anything you do is exactly known by god and thus free will does not excists because God knows exactly what will happen and there is no way to do it differently, as you can not do anything different from what God already knows you will do.

That is one of the reasons why I don't believe in any kind of God.

quote:Originally posted by niggersexual:

Where does it say that Yahweh is omniscent?

I don't know where, but it's being taught that he is.

But, if Cain already knew that god was omniscient, and God already knew that Cain killed Abel, then why would Cain lie anyway, it would be pretty pointless to lie.

quote:Originally posted by Raptafairious:

it would be pretty pointless to lie.

and there we come to the moral of the story children.

i don't have a problem with these morallity stories, its the superstition, strange beliefs and anti-progress attitude that makes me wish all christians just shut the fuck up and stopped spreading their poison.

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

God is supposed to be omniscient, but this is contradicted in the bible when he doesn't immediately know that Cain killed Abel. 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he

said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? God should have known already if he truly was omniscient. Discuss.



For your sake God loves the ignorant.

Life is full of tests, this was one of them for Cain. God was never pwnt, he did the pwnin.

quote:Originally posted by Amos:

Cain couldn't have told the truth because God knew he would ly and God knows everything and can not fail. Thus anything you do is exactly known by god and thus free will does not excists because God knows exactly what will happen and there is no way to do it differently, as you can not do anything different from what God already knows you will do.

That is one of the reasons why I don't believe in any kind of God.

Until recently this was my main argument against christianity, (and don't worry their is several other inarguable ways that christianity is false) but even though God is apparently omnipotent or w/e I now think "he" chooses not to look at what descicions people will make, much like he is supposedly unable to look at sin (which is dumb because then he couldnt know if you were sinning or not.. but thats a whole different argument) so he may have been able to see what Cain was going to do but didnt allow himself too, because that would change free will.

Also, can someone please tell me where in the Bible it is told we are given a choice to follow christ, i couldnt find that out, if it dosent say it then the bible is in really deep shit because then that is saying that some people are not given a chance.)

quote:Originally posted by lordkiller:



For your sake God loves the ignorant.

Life is full of tests, this was one of them for Cain. God was never pwnt, he did the pwnin.

God may love the ignorant but I guess he dosent mind sending them to hell for being ignorant, does he?, faggot? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

and there we come to the moral of the story children.

i don't have a problem with these morallity stories, its the superstition, strange beliefs and anti-progress attitude that makes me wish all christians just shut the fuck up and stopped spreading their poison.

Pretty much exactly my opinion, it is actually quite frightening in that there is people so blindly clinging onto Christianity, which is mostly because it was the first thing they were ever tought, making being open minded to other religions practically impossible.



[This message has been edited by Hate Crimez (edited 02-04-2006).]

This is one of the things that streses me out the most over christianity... equality,

Christianity is claiming an absolute, you either believe in Christ and follow God, or you are condemned to Hell if you don't. How is that fair to certain people?.. lets say you were born in one of the serveral middle-eastern countries that are almost entirely Muslim, how can you be expected to follow christ when so much of what is around you says that Christianity is false?, and other people who are, lets say, born in North America into Christian families and out in Christian schools with all this support and encouragement to follow Christ, have it so much easier to choose the "right option" while the persons of the Muslim countries are left in the dust?

This also works the other way against the Muslim faith, in which I am even more threatend by, because often it leads to death and war, take the entire middle eat situation right now.

[This message has been edited by Hate Crimez (edited 02-04-2006).]

Some people often say, "well, Christianity is much more logical then Islam, Scientology, Mormonism etc." which I agree almost 100%.

But that's still a poor argument and here's why...

Take suicide for example. What seems a more logical way to die?, overdose on sleeping pills or jump into a bath of hot coals and slowly burn to death. Oviously taking the sleeping pills is much more logical because it means you don't have to spend the last minutes of your life in terrible agonizing pain (unless that is what you were going for).. but in the end, you're still KILLING YOURSELF.

Just because it is written, does not make it so.

Just because you were tought it, does not make it true.

Just because it's the easiest to belive does not make it right.

Just because most other people are doing it, does not mean you should.

[This message has been edited by Hate Crimez (edited 02-04-2006).]

I find it funny that even though the Bible may not contradict itself even at all, christians almost always contradict the Bible.

Just because the Bible may not contradict itself, does not mean it is anything more then a well written story.

^^Have you finished talking with yourself there dude? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

there are 100(0?)'s of contradictions i the bible, and yet people still continue to believe it. that also sickens me.

Contradictions = misunderstandings.

Tell me what these are, and I will refute them.

Also, you've never read the Bible, so it's hilarious that you can sit there smugly and say that there are HUNDREDS of contradictions in it !!

*laughs*

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

How do you know what God was doing?

The Bible tells us what God was doing. *lol*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The Bible tells us what God was doing. *lol*

What makes you so sure the Bible isn't just a history book with some morality stories

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Contradictions = misunderstandings.

Tell me what these are, and I will refute them.



Here's one,

The bible does not contain any error, correct? Then justify the bible giving the incorrect number of pi:

"And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

-- 1 Kings 7:23

Here ya go digital http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/biblecontra.html

have fun.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Here's one,

The bible does not contain any error, correct? Then justify the bible giving the incorrect number of pi:

"And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

-- 1 Kings 7:23



The Hebrew authors rounded their numbers, and they most likely did not do it according to standardized rounding conventions. Examples are the number of people who lived in each tribe of Israel, the number of people who died in battle, etc. If it had a diameter of about 10 cubits (a cubit is an estimate itself, since it varies from the person measuring), then a circumference of 30 cubits would also be a good estimate. Remember that this wasn't a blueprint for its design, it was only a description.

Another possibility, if you're feeling picky, is that it wasn't perfectly circular, but rather shaped slightly like an oval or some other closed rounded geometrical figure. Thus, you could measure it from the short diameter to get exactly 10 cubits and at the same time you could get a circumference of exactly 30 cubits. Once again, people back then did not use rulers but their bodies to measure things, so trying to get an exact figure is rather meaningless.

For fun, if you want to go by modern rounding conventions and imagine it to be perfectly circular, you can work backwards from a circumference of 30.

29.5 / pi = 9.39

30.5 / pi = 9.71

9.5 * pi = 29.85

And so you get a diameter of 9.50 to 9.71 with a circumference of 29.85 to 30.50. And yes, I know that 30.50 rounds up, but I'm hoping you understand that I mean it as an upper boundary.

Estimation, by definition, is error. You've just claimed that the bible contains error, therefore, the bible is not infallible.

You have not only failed to justify what I asked, but ended up refuting the Christian claim that the bible is infallible.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Estimation, by definition, is error. You've just claimed that the bible contains error, therefore, the bible is not infallible.

You have not only failed to justify what I asked, but ended up refuting the Christian claim that the bible is infallible.



Alright, I'll give you an example of estimation from the Bible.

Numbers 1:20-21 -- "The tribal list of Reuben, Israel's eldest son, by families in the father's line, with the name of every male person aged twenty years and upwards fit for service, the number in the list of the tribe of Reuben being forty-six thousand five hundred."

Now, suppose the actual number of people during this census was 46,511. If that is true, then would that prove the Bible is not inerrant?

Yes. It would prove that the bible does in fact contain error, and thus is not inerrant.

That the error is purposeful (e.g. when we write 3.14 when approximating pi to save time, space, and work) does not refute the fact that it is still an error.

You're saying it as if I were being unreasonable, when that is simply not the case. It is the Christian that makes the outrageous claim that the bible is completely inerrant that is unreasonable. They must either believe every single description, and measurement in the bible is completely correct (i.e. does not contain a margin of error greater than 0%) or admit that it does in fact contain error and is therefore not inerrant.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-07-2006).]

Alright, here's another one...

If the Bible verse I quoted above instead said that there were approximately 46,500, and the actual number was 46,511, then would the Bible be proven to not be inerrant?

edit: wording

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 02-07-2006).]

No. Intent is irrelevant; it does not refute the fact that it is still error. The only thing that adding the word "approximately" does, is show intent.

What do you mean by "intent"?

Intent: the act or fact of intending.

Intending: to have in mind as a purpose or goal.

Example:

"The person giving the approximation for pi planned to give that approximation; he therefore, possessed the intent to give that approximation. It was intentional."



By saying " A measures approximately X " the word "approximately" is explicitly telling us that the author is conscious of the approximation. We can also say that the author intended to approximate (i.e. he had the intent of approximating) if he (the author) knows that it is an approximation, and deliberately gave it as a description/measurement of A.

That the author knows it is an approximation, and deliberately gave it as an approximation (i.e. he included the word "approximately", thus cluing us that he consciously, and deliberately gave an approximation) does not refute that it is still a figure which contains error, the magnitude of which we could determine.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-07-2006).]

I see.

However, I believe that our disagreement rests on two types of inerrancy.

1. Accuracy

2. Precision

In my example, by saying that there are approximately 46,500, while rounding each figure off to hundreds (see the other verses for this) and the actual number is 46,511, he has maintained accuracy but not precision. If he had said that there were exactly 46,000 then the Bible would be both imprecise and inaccurate. Precision cannot always be narrowed down to 100%. With people (who generally only come in whole numbers), that is possible. With measurements of length, there is realistically no such thing as 100% precision. If you go way down to sub-quantum levels you'll find that the smallest meaningful length is the Planck length, but at this precision the length of a 1 meter object varies by trillions (or something) of Planck lengths every discernable moment, making accuracy unfeasible.

And so, Biblical inerrancy only means that the Bible is completely accurate, not completely precise. There are many things that the Bible does not describe, and every Christian I know of, whether or not they believe in Biblical inerrancy, acknowledges this.

You're convolution the matter with irrelevancies. What I'm discussing has absolutely nothing to do with precision.

Precision requires, by definition, more than one figure (number). You are precise if you give two or more figures that are relatively close to each other. To use the example often used, you would show precision if you shoot arrows that land beside each other, even if they land completely off-target.

On the other hand, accuracy determines how close one gets to the true value. You are accurate if the value you gave is close to the actual value (i.e. of there is a low margin of error). To use the archery analogy again, you would be accurate if your arrows land close to the target.

What I'm discussing has everything to do with the accuracy of the bible, and nothing to do with precision. Actually, it is impossible to say if the bible is being precise in its estimation of pi, since it has only given one value for it( at least, in the passage we're discussing)! Moreover, the only way accuracy hinges of precision is if more than one value of pi was given (since the less precise one is, the less accurate one is as well - landing arrows far from each other means that not all of them can be close to the target); and if that were the case, there would already be a contradiction in the bible! This argument must, out of pure necessity, deal only with accuracy; especifically, accuracy when there is only one value involved, which is exactly what I'm dealing with: one value of pi given in the bible, and its margin of error.

Again:

If the bible is not completely accurate (i.e. it contains a margin of error greater than 0%) then it contains error by definition, and therefore is not infallible. You have shown that the bible is not completely accurate in your own argument, therefore the bible is not infallible.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

1) Any post that ends in "discuss" should be immediately locked.

2) God could have been giving Cain a chance to come clean and admit what he did.

Discuss.

Self pwnage?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Precision requires, by definition, more than one figure. You are precise if you give two or more figures that are relatively close to each other. To use the example often used, you would show precision if you shoot arrows that land beside each other, even if they land completely off-target.

Precision is the degree of refinement in obtaining a result. It does not require multiple figures for it to be precise, but rather to determine whether it is precise. For example, if you use a sniper scope in a rifle to shoot the target, you would have precision. But if the scope wasn't adjusted correctly, you'd have inaccurate results.

I'll agree with the rest of what you said about precision and accuracy, but at the same time I don't believe that my previous statements were wrong, because I was talking about rounding. I'll try to explain...

When you round off a number, this implies a range of possible values dependent on the original number and the digit you rounded off to. In my previous example, 46,500 implies a range of numbers something like 46,450 to 46,550. If I said that the actual number was between 46,450 and 46,550 when the value is 46,511, this would be a true statement. The statement itself is accurate. Also, the rounded number alone which resulted is not accurate, but the range of possible values it implies is, and that's what's actually important.

When I was talking about precision, I got it from a reverse method. The level of uncertainty is inversely proportional to the level of precision. The following assumes the original number that's gotten and rounded is correct with no uncertainty. So, if you rounded 46,511 to the nearest thousand, you'd get 47,000. Because the original level of uncertainty was supposed to be zero, you can say that the new range of uncertainty is plus or minus 500. This is greater uncertainty than that of 46,500 -- plus or minus 50 -- and therefore it is less precise. What has happened is the rounding has made it less precise. Now, on the other hand, if the original measurement had an uncertainty above plus or minus 500, the precision would remain about the same after rounding to the nearest thousand. I just had assumed that the original measurement was perfect, since it hadn't been put into question and doing so would only add confusion to what we were trying to discuss.

Another thing about rounding is that it does not imply that one possible value in its range is more probable than another, unlike normal measurement which implies that the numbers closest to the estimation are most probable. In this way, rounding is more vagueness than anything.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Precision is the degree of refinement in obtaining a result. It does not require multiple figures for it to be precise, but rather to determine whether it is precise. For example, if you use a sniper scope in a rifle to shoot the target, you would have precision. But if the scope wasn't adjusted correctly, you'd have inaccurate results.

Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. That already shows how irrelevant the topic of precision is since we cannot even begin to debate whether or not the bible is precise if it has only given one value of pi. Precision has absolutely nothing to do with what I argued.

quote:

I'll agree with the rest of what you said about precision and accuracy, but at the same time I don't believe that my previous statements were wrong, because I was talking about rounding. I'll try to explain...

Your statement was wrong in that our "disagreement" had nothing to do with "two types of inerrancy" as you claimed. I never dealt with precision, since my argument does not require it. Not only does it not require it, it would be futile to debate the precision of the bible since we can't determine if its precise!

Again, my argument is as follows:

If the bible contains any level of error, then it cannot be infallible. The bible contains error if it approximates the value of pi. The bible approximates the value of pi, therefore the bible is not infallible. This is not up to debate; it follows directly from Modus ponens.

I've ignored the rest of your post since it has little relevance to what I am arguing.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Again, my argument is as follows:

If the bible contains any level of error, then it cannot be infallible. The bible contains error if it approximates the value of pi. The bible approximates the value of pi, therefore the bible is not infallible. This is not up to debate; it follows directly from Modus ponens.

I've ignored the rest of your post since it has little relevance to what I am arguing.

1. There is nothing to suggest that the value for pi was approximated in order to give those results. It is just as likely that they measured the diameter and circumference manually, then rounded the measurements off to nice, memorable numbers.

2. Rounding is not a form of error. It is a way to simplify answers. It is like a marker to tell approximately where the answer is -- but it is not actually the answer. The true values are never given, and therefore it cannot be determined whether the Bible is fallible from these passages of scripture.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

1. There is nothing to suggest that the value for pi was approximated in order to give those results. It is just as likely that they measured the diameter and circumference manually, then rounded the measurements off to nice, memorable numbers.

2. Rounding is not a form of error. It is a way to simplify answers. It is like a marker to tell approximately where the answer is -- but it is not actually the answer. The true values are never given, and therefore it cannot be determined whether the Bible is fallible from these passages of scripture.

1. That is not a refutation at all since if there is no error in the value of pi, there must be error in the diameter and/or circumeference given. The result is absolutely the same, the bible would not be infallible in either case.

2. Rounding involves error which is the crucial point (and the only thing I've said). "Rounding" is nothing but "approximation" by another name!

Rounding: "The process of approximating a quantity, be it for convenience or, as in the case of numerical computations, of necessity. If rounding is performed on each of a series of numbers in a long computation, roundoff error can become important, especially if division by a small number ever occurs."

-- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rounding.html

An approximated number contains error, by the very definition of approximation. This is an irrefutable fact. Thus:

If the bible has given a number for pi, and that number has been approximated, then it must contain error by the very definition of approximation and therefore, the bible contains error, thus the bible is not infallible.

That the "true value was never given" is actually exactly why the bible is not infallible! It has not given the true of pi, it has only given an estimation of it, thus has given an ultimately erroneous answer.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-08-2006).]

It does not matter that the rounded number has error. It is only an easy to remember marker for the true value. What would matter is if the true, unmentioned value does not round to the number given in the Bible. And it is very easy to see how this can be.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

It does not matter that the rounded number has error. It is only an easy to remember marker for the true value.

Wrong. It matters immensely.

That the bible contains error refutes the assertion that it is infallible.

That the approximation serves as a "marker" is irrelevant; that has to do with the purpose, or benefit the approximation gives us, not with whether it's an error or not. It is an error by the very definition of approximation. There is nothing to debate here.

quote: What would matter is if the true, unmentioned value does not round to the number given in the Bible. And it is very easy to see how this can be.

The value is already mentioned by virtue of the circumference and diameter given!

By mentioning a specific diameter and circumference, the bible is also mentioning the alleged value for pi. If the real circumference and diameter are not the values given, then the values it gave contain error themselves, and thus the point still stands.

Either the error is in the value of pi the bible has given implicitly, or in the values of circumference and diameter it has given explicitly. In either case, the bible proves to be fallible.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-08-2006).]

Digital_Savior can you come pwn Rust on his number thing again? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

My pleasure.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Here's one,

The bible does not contain any error, correct? Then justify the bible giving the incorrect number of pi:

"And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

-- 1 Kings 7:23



PI in the Bible (https://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005167.html)

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Here ya go digital htt p://www.eb onmusings. org/atheism/biblecontra.html (http: //www.ebon musings.or g/atheism/ biblecontr a.html)

have fun.

One thread at a time would be nice.

kthxbye

Well, she failed. Anyone else?

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

God is supposed to be omniscient, but this is contradicted in the bible when he doesn't immediately know that Cain killed Abel. 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he

said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? God should have known already if he truly was omniscient. Discuss.

When God questions man, He isn't asking because He doesn't know... He's asking so we can admit our faults. He didn't (ahem), pwn Himself.

I think the bible is true and I try to fallow it. I am happy with it and how it changes my life.god is real too. god was giving cain a chance to tell the truth I think. I would hope you take no offence at what I say non was ment.

ps. I like what chubbyman25 says.