> I think the disconnect between our conversation is that based on what you have communicated it me, it seems that your basis for truth is the contents of the bible.

Thanks for trying to clarify, but this isn't it. My basis for truth is correspondence to reality based on evidence. Through research, I have determined that the Bible stands up to examination and that there's a ton of evidence to support it, and on that basis I consider the Bible to be true. It's the same kind of thinking by which I consider science and history to be true.

> You have many major religions that claim their book is the only truth and that fact alone makes me skeptical to believe any of them.

Right. We don't just believe the book because it's "the book," nor because the book or any religious person says to believe it. We believe it because it stands up to scrutiny and corresponds with reality. That's why I'm skeptical of the other religious books but believe the Bible. It has enough evidence to bear it out.

But, frankly, you're asking questions about Jesus's pre-existence, Jesus as God's son, why did God create the world, and the identity of angels. These aren't exactly the kinds of subjects we can do science experiments about.

A question for you is: Why do you want to participate in a discussion with a Christian if you're not going to buy anything they say?

I think the disconnect between our conversation is that based on what you have communicated it me, it seems that your basis for truth is the contents of the bible.

While it may be unique in its claims, believing in a book is not a unique idea. You have many major religions that claim their book is the only truth and that fact alone makes me skeptical to believe any of them.

Glad you asked. Yep, the Bible certainly claims that.

- John 1.1-3: The Word (Jesus, v. 14) was with God in the beginning. Actually, he is God.
- John 17.5, 24: Jesus claims to have been around before the world began
- Colossians 1.15-16: Jesus is the creator of the universe
- Hebrews 1.2: Jesus is the creator of the universe
- John 8.58: Jesus claims to have existed before Abraham (who was in about 2000 BC).

> So I'm not making up stuff.

I'm not claiming you made anything up.. but somewhere along the line someone did. They created a word to describe something that we didn't have a word for. For example, words like "soul" have been created to describe something for which we have no evidence exists. Therefore, someone like you may use the word to justify it's existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean it does exist.

> "him" is the son God had before there were human beings.

I guess that's a shortcoming of my knowledge of the bible. I wasn't aware that it stated that Jesus existed before his birth on earth.

> I suppose you can use a word in any way you want.

People can, and people do, but I'm not guilty of that. There are accepted various definitions of "children" and "son."

- In the Bible, Hezekiah (about 700 BC) is called a "son" of David (who reigned in about 1000 BC). "Son" here means "descendent."
- In the Bible, Solomon is called a "son" of David. He was a biological child of David's.
- In the Gospels, James and John are called the "Sons of Thunder." It's a name implying something about their personality, but it has nothing to do with their heritage, biology, or ethnicity.
- In Paul's letters, wicked people are called the "sons of disobedience." It's a theological implication that they are sinners.

So I'm not making up stuff.

> The point is that you said "he wanted more children" ("He" being God). You said more. I asked if he already had children.

Yes, and I answered you. I wrote, "Yes, he had a son. The Bible mentions him in places like Psalm 2.7 and John 3.16." "He" is God; "him" is the son God had before there were human beings.

I suppose you can use a word in any way you want. I recently had a discussion that involved the difference between the words "good" and "Good". The point is that you said: "he wanted more children." You said more. I asked if he already had children.

Now, now, let's not get insulting. Think a little deeper. "Children" can be natural (biological), they can be adopted (legal), they can be metaphorical ("I am a son of science," "The business I started is my child," etc.), and they can be sociological (all children in the tribe are considered sons of the chief), among other possibilities.

Covenants in the ancient world, as all of their cultures, were understood in the setting (worldview) of kinship relations. Though it was a legal and judicial entity, there was always a familial element to it. By establishing a covenant an outsider could be brought into a kinship relationship, sort of like a "kin-in-law."

Sometimes kinship extended to the whole tribe. Any younger male was a "son" to any older male.

In the ancient world, some kings considered themselves as a "son of god" because the represented the deity to the people and mediated for the people to the deity. There are all kinds of ways to speak about "children" and "son".

Jesus is considered God's son in several ways also.

- The theological necessity of the incarnation, that Jesus would actually be born in human flesh.
- To emphasize the uniqueness of Jesus's relationship with YHWH in personal fellowship.
- To emphasize the sending of the 2nd person of the Trinity on a mission.
- To emphasize the "one-bloodness", so to speak, kinship relationship of YHWH and Jesus. They share a nature; they are of the same essence.

You seem to not understand the meaning of the words "children" and "son".

Yes, he had a son. The Bible mentions him in places like Psalm 2.7 and John 3.16.

> God created human beings because he wanted more children

Did God already have children?