How complex is God?

In the Old Testament the Biblical Deity, whatever He actually is, reveals Himself as a Person. The New Testament says that Jesus of Nazareth is an incarnation of that Old Testament Deity in the flesh. Jesus said if you have seen Him then you have seen the Father. Jesus is not THE Old Testament Deity in the flesh, but the Son of that Old Testament Deity in the flesh. Jesus is: all God and all man at all times and in all expressions all of the time.God, in whatever form, is complex.In the Old Testament, God also reveals Himself through many different names. Each name and its meaning represents a part of His intrinsic nature. Some scholars mistake the names of God to represent a separate manuscript and the scribes who wrote it. The names of God represent what He wants to be in behalf of mankind (in exchange for faith and trust) and have nothing to do with authorship. Again, these names indicate complexity.The Bible itself is seen to be riddled with factual errors. In reality this is gross misunderstanding caused by the inability to understand the context and complexity of the Scriptures and the Mind who inspired them. The purpose of theologians is to explain the Bible and untangle the complexity.Modern science has voluminously established that irreducible complexity is a fact. The same, of course, corresponds perfectly to the Biblical Deity and His power.Ray

I can play your game too:"Darwin mistakenly thought the facts meant that evolution had occurred." Ordinary Atheist philosophy."The desire to substantiate the Atheist worldview caused them to assume the only other option: transmutation (species created them self or a personified Nature whom they spoke for)." Evolutionists must deny the long established facts of IC or their theory is falsified. This makes your comment a necessity while explaining the same.Ray

"Explanation" presupposes that the textual evidence does not mean what it says (God reveals Himself as a person). Who would make this counterfactual supposition (and why)?When we remember that Iceage is an Atheist, that is, a person who has every reason to misrepresent the Bible, then his "explanation" or supposition then "makes sense." Why would anyone assume contrary to the evidence? Why does the comment presuppose that the many names of God need explaining other than their definition revealing characteristics of God's nature?Again, when we remember that persons who engage in these subjective and antonymic assumptions are Atheists and Darwinists, their attempts to corrupt the face value meaning of the Bible via these assumptions and suppositions, that is, the enemy of the Atheist creation myth known as the Theory of Evolution, reveals their ulterior motive. Atheist opinions of the Bible are obviously predetermined, obviously unreasonable, and misrepresented to be based on evidence when they are based on assumptions contrary to the evidence as I have shown.Ray

But the source of information concerning the Biblical Deity (the Bible) says He is eternal; therefore, your "who created God" reasoning is subjective and ad hoc.Ray

Yes, I have an explanation. If true, that is if the Koran denies the divinity of Jesus then my explanation is that it means what it says: the Koran denies the divinity of Jesus. But validity is not and was not the issue (nice try at bait and switch). The issue WAS your assumptions contrary to what Text says. My on-going point is: either what it says is true or false AND NOT the third option that you attempt: it really means something else. If it meant something else then why didn't it say "that something else"?The Koran is simply wrong. The evidence says so. I am sure Muslims disagree but that is not the point. The point is that persons like you say A means Z based on subjective bias and preconceptions.A is either true or false. Then why do you use traditional Atheist arguments? Of course not. I believe the Bible stands or falls based on what it says. OTOH, your kind says what it says does not mean what it says = corruption. It means what it says and what it says is either true or false. Same for the Koran. Comment presupposes that what you say is reasonable and logical and common sense (very predictable). I have shown that it is not reasonable or logical or common sense, but Atheist corruption of the Bible. This comment demands that Atheist "reasoning" and "logic" and "common sense" be not pointed out. Why would anyone object to Atheist handling of their enemy (the Bible) not be exposed?This is why Atheists own collars and crosses, like Ken Miller and John Shelby Spong and dress like sheep (= Jar).Give me honest Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Crashfrog or Brian Johnston of Scotland. I'll take these persons any day. They say the Bible is wrong and do not attempt to corrupt what it says.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.