Unanswerable questions for theists.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
you are transliterating:
It does not say eternal fire when referring to the place outside Jerusalem
The old testament refers to that place yes
The new testament had a completely different idea of hell.
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).
Please try to view them as different theologies of 2 different gods.
You are simply not even considering it.
Thus Your replies are just incorrect on every level.
Completely disagree. You are using the interpretation that developed much later. I am telling you the original meaning. The New Testament follows on from the Old. Same group of people, same story, same God. Read the apocrypha if you want more cultural info from the time.
no my source is the original Leningrad codex where the church translated the old testament from.
You are using the interpretation you invented :P
No, the original meaning is not what you think, please quote where does the old testament say that hell is an eternal fire like you claimed?
Please quote where does the new testament claim that hell is a place outside the city, a dump?
You are constantly making claims without supporting them just because you believe them without doubting them.
Where in the apocrypha does it support your claims?(do you seriously expect me to go looking for something you invented?)
Again you dodged most of my questions.
The word translated "hell" in most translations of the New Testament is "Gehenna." 12 occurrences. Just look it up in a Greek concordance. Or here's one: http://biblehub.com/greek/1067.htm
The apocrypha gives us great evidence of what 1st Century life and thinking was like.
The Leningrad codex is from about 1000 years after Jesus. It is just the first COMPLETE manuscript we have of the Hebrew Bible. We have bazillions of texts from long before then.
You again did not answer my questions.
I asked where in the new testament says that hell is a dump outside the city walls.
They could have used the wrong word if they are forging something so just saying that Genna means dump/etc.. is not enough.
After following your link, it contradicts itself
It says clearly "hell of fire'
You need to read the sentence and check the context.
The truth is that you don't/can't find anywhere in the new testament that supports your claim.
Hell was a fire-ish place in the New testament and you won't convince a living soul unless you quote where it says otherwise.
Don't give links to discussions but give quotes and locations in the bible.
Yea the Leningrad codex is a COMPLETE manuscript, and is exactly what the early massorites thought about the old testament, they copied it letter for letter.
Are you claiming that they modified something?
There were 3 schools competing for this at the time and the Massorites won the battle of literature.
You are claiming things which you do not have access to.
They had more access and knew more then you about the old testament.
What ever earlier pieces you have of the old testament they might be modified, wrong too.
We know that the Jew themselves were cutting and editing the old testament well before Christ so what you said is nothing new.
One of the books they removed was: 'Wars of Yahweh".
In the old testament there is no hint of a fire-ish hell, there is no hint of a soul
There is no hint of an afterlife even in the christian Leningrad codex.
If the Christians, that favored a life after death did not edit such things to not modify the literature, what claim do you have to invent stuff from the old testament?
The old testament god has nothing to do with the new testament god.
If you claim you know anything about your religion please prove me wrong.
Prove me where does the old testament support the basic concepts of the new testament like:
Eternal life after death, the soul, omnipotent god, loving god.
Just to give you an idea of how wrong the christian idea of the bible is:
Did you know that the commandments:
Do not kill
Do not steal
Are NOT the correct interpretation.
The right interpretation of the text is:
Do not kill thy neighbor
Do not steal from thy neighbor.
It was OK to kill people as long as it wasn't from their own neighborhood(their military camp commanded by Yahweh)
Thus there is no contradictions here when Yahweh himself orders the killing of innocent children in his military campaign to conquer the promised land.
You and all Christians have just the wrong interpretations of the old testament commandments.
They were more then 10, btw and they were as a pact they did with this yahweh. If they follow those rules he will give them their promised land.
That is the story, now you can twist this story to make it mean what you want but you cannot change what is written even if your christian ancestors did it without objections.
Today we can read too.
The New Testament doesn't say that "hell" is a place outside Jerusalem. I have been trying to tell you that the NT doesn't preach the idea of hell at all. They didn't believe that.
We know what and where Gehenna is from history and archaeology mostly, although there are references to the place in the Old Testament too (generally called the "Valley of Hinnom").
The idea that when Jesus says "Gehenna" he means "a horrible fiery place where heathens are taken after they die to suffer for all eternity" is a development that came to the fore in medieval times. Then every time it said "gehenna" in the Bible they changed it to "hell" to fit their theology. The much more sensible interpretation is that when Jesus said Gehenna he meant Gehenna. The reason Jesus used it as a threat to revolutionaries who were intent on violence (for example), is that it was a place where criminals in particular were taken. So it was like saying "If you do that, you're just like a criminal." This lines up well with all his other sayings too.
This interpretation makes even more sense when you put it alongside your correct observation that there was no eternal-fiery-hell in the Old Testament. In the OT the belief of the Jews was that one day God would restore Israel to its rightful place. Jesus followed on from that belief, but widened it to include the whole world: "One day God will restore the whole world, and it's actually started now." That's the bit that surprised the Jews, but it shouldn't have, because right from the beginning of the Bible (and through the Psalms etc) the vision is for the whole world to be a place of peace and love, where God brings order and beauty through his representatives the humans.
None of that matters even if your right, the organisations preach hell and thats what matters.
Remember the bible was not intended for common people only a resource for clergy.
What the church believed it preached nothing else matters.
When the whole book is unverified whats it matter what part of it says or doesn't say. The church has always altered it to conform to their wishes.
Yes I'm very frustrated by what is commonly preached in churches. But I don't base my belief on what churches say. I base my belief on Jesus, so that's why I do so much research to figure out exactly what he is on about. I've changed many of my beliefs in the past because I discovered they weren't accurate.
The Bible actually was intended for the common people. That's why it was written in the everyday language of the people of the time instead of the more academic language used by other scholarly writers. It actually took a while to translate the new testament properly because all of the other Greek we had from the first century used the academic language, and it's only in the last hundred or so years that we've discovered more texts written in everyday greek (to compare word usage/structure etc).
You can repeat it, how many times you want, you will never convince any sane person that hell of fire is not motioned in the bible.
Matt. 10:28,"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matt. 18:9, "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire."
How could you claim that this sentence could mean anything else rather then an afterlife Hell?
Please make the connection, since you failed to quote again, you simply cannot handle a serious discussion where you actually need to support your claims. The romans wanted to replace the OLD testament Gehennah will a worse thing then suffering and dying in this world. You are right the meaning was modified on purpose but not in the middle ages, it was from the very start.
The only real support for your claim is the OT and there we agree, the is no hell in there. But then you are abusing this fact to make a more outrageous claim. You are misleading what is actually written. If you read the context of the NT, it is clear that the concept of a hell of fire was what the authors wanted to portray. (even if they used words that didn't mean that)
This is typical of forgeries and fraud, but you don't want to accept the most likely possibility right?
"The idea that when Jesus says "Gehenna" he means "a horrible fiery place where heathens are taken after they die to suffer for all eternity" is a development that came to the fore in medieval times"
As I have previously explained, the idea was there from the very beginning, it was their main idea to justify all the suffering around them during the roman period.
Making people/slaves believe that it is OK to suffer in this world and go to heaven, rather then rebel/sin and going to an eternal torture in hell.
Alright let's look again at the Bible. Ok with me :)
Matt. 10:28,"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."
This is actually Jesus talking to his own disciples, not unbelievers, so it's not a threat. It's also probably not referring to God here, but the devil (or the forces of evil). Beelzebub is mentioned only a few verses before after all, and it makes not much sense to put God there in verse 28...
“Don’t fear murder from Roman/Jewish leaders. Do fear God who can murder you more completely. But don’t be afraid because God loves you and will take care of you.” Jesus doesn't really talk about God in destructive terms like that.
The more likely interpretation for me is that Jesus is telling his disciples "There are people who can kill your body (eg the Romans) but remember there are more powerful forces at work here, that could even use Rome as a puppet master. If you follow those voices (eg into violent revolution) it's the road straight to Gehanna, dead and burning with the other criminals. But you don't have to be scared of the forces of evil either because God loves you and has your back."
Matt. 18:9, "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna." This one's even simpler. It's better to be alive with one arm than dead with all your body parts accounted for. Get your shit sorted today.
I guess when one is desperate he can see water in the desert.
An entire paragraph to say "God loves you and has your back", are you serious?
Do you know the level of absurdity you have just fallen into?
You earlier claimed: The word translated "hell" here is the word "Gehenna," which was a place outside Jerusalem where they dumped the bodies of people who'd died.
So now you are claiming that right outside Jerusalem there is a place where even your soul can be destroyed.
Please don't insult our intelligence.
That sentence means simply hell, where the souls dwell not a place outside Jerusalem.
You are trying to fit a meaning that simply does not fit the context of the sentence, not unless you provide evidence of souls being destroyed right outside Jerusalem that is.
"enter life with one eye," here jesus clearly means the life after you die, The Second Life, since you can only choose to remove one eye in this life. So if you don't remove the eye which is causing you to sin then your sins will drag you down to hell. If you take hell as meaning a place outside Jerusalem, then you are simply saying that there is no life after death, and thus you would be contradicting the fist sentence.
There is simply no way you can twist the those quote to make them mean an earthly place beneames, I tried myself and failed. i wouldn't have quoted them if I knew you had any hope of twisting their meaning.
Of-course you can claim a lot of things and refuse the truth as much as you like but as I told you before:
There is no way you can convince any sane person that there is no hell in the New Testament, You are simply wrong there period.
Also in the Matt. 18:9; Jesus clearly is saying that you should avoid temptations because it can "causes you to sin"
It simply doesn't make sens if the punishment for sin was that your dead body would be placed outside Jerusalem.
First of all we can only be judged fully of our sins by god(according to christian theology).
This happens only after we die. So your claim that going to Gehanna to burn is simply false since you would be already dead by then.
So it doesn't matter what happens to your physical body, although you are claiming that a sinner like me would have his body thrown near Jerusalem after I die which is ridiculous to say the least.
You have yet still to support the claim that sinners at the time of Jesus were even thrown there after they died.
You are making a billion of claims when you sprout nonsense like this.
Jesus cannot have possibly meant a physical place in that sentence. There is no way that all sinners will be ever thrown in 1 physical place.
He meant in the second life, that is the only logical explanation which the early church fathers were smart enough to come up with.
You, it seems are not that smart because you don't wish to be because it would make contradictions to your theology.(which is wrong)
Btw, whoever wrote the quote didn't even spend 5 minutes to think about it. it is ironic that we are dwelling on an invented claim just because you cannot accept the fact that the new testament has nothing to do with the old testament.
there is no connection, no transliteration mistakes, the new testament was written in Greek originally because the preachers could only understand Greek since the were Romans.
So if there were any translation mistakes is from Greek to latin or Greek to English.
You just have sunglasses on that wont alow you to get the right interpretation because you want desperately that your interpretation is the correct one.
I am ready to change my mind the moment new evidence comes up that proves me wrong, are you of the same opinion?
Hey mate, sorry I was on holidays for a bit there.
I'm not claiming half the stuff you're claiming. It's a bit like this argument...
Me: I believe in hats.
You: Ha! Anyone who believes in hats also believes in the tooth fairy. And everyone knows the tooth fairy doesn't exist so you are obviously stupid.
Also, the burden of proof is on YOU for the Flavian conspiracy theory, seeing as you're in a very small minority of people who believe that. I've looked into it and I'm not convinced. That doesn't mean I'm an idiot. It's a bit like this argument....
Me: I went to the shops yesterday.
You: Ha! You didn't go to the shops yesterday. You were abducted by aliens and they planted that memory in your mind. You actually stayed at home yesterday and did nothing.
Me: What?! That's crazy. Of course that didn't happen.
You: Well then, prove it.
Me: Umm... well I have new shoes.
You: Obviously the aliens gave them to you.
Me: Oh well in that case, I guess I can't prove it.
You: So there. You were abducted by aliens.
I just replied to those unsupported claims and more.
For now we are debating about your unsupported claim that hell does not exist in the NT.
"This is actually Jesus talking to his own disciples, not unbelievers, so it's not a threat. It's also probably not referring to God here, but the devil"
You dodged the argument again, you are completely ignoring the point, the hell/genna here is a place in the after life not a physical location.
You made a claim and those quotes prove you wrong.
All the claims I have made are supported with evidence, yours are proven wrong, that is the difference.
There is simply no context here that puts hell/ghenna as a physical place in the new testament.
"remember there are more powerful forces at work here, that could even use Rome as a puppet master."
My point is that those quotes prove that hell is not a physical place, it is useless changing the subject.
"it's the road straight to Gehanna, dead and burning with the other criminals. "
I see no evidence that in the new testament or anywhere in history books that bodies were thrown in a place out of Jerusalem except in the old testament.
You are constantly assuming things because you cannot remove your bias that the new testament god is the same guy of the old testament.
You cannot think objectively.
I am a sinner and when I die I am sure that my body will not be thrown anywhere close to your ghenna.
Which proves that either jesus was wrong or that you got your context wrong and genna means a place in the afterlife for the NT writers.
This entire argument was about hell not about "Flavian conspiracy theory" so STOP trying to change the subject.
Stick to this point about hell in the NT meaning a physical place first because clearly you cannot face the facts here.
Let me quote them to you again so maybe this time you stick to the point:
Matt. 10:28,"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Jesus referring to the devil that can destroy your soul in hell, a place in the afterlife, you soul does not dwell in a physical place.
Matt. 18:9, "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire."
If you sin in this life, you will be thrown in hell. If he is referring to a physical place then Jesus is outright lying, but if he is referring to an afterlife place then it is possible. He would be lying since we don't trow sinners or bodies of sinners right outside Jerusalem today. It is never recorded of ever happening during the times of the Romans either.
We're running out of room here. Is there another place we can carry this on? Are you on Facebook or something?
Ok fair enough. The Flavian topic was somewhere else but I've lost the thread. And you keep bringing it up so I figured I'd mention it here too.
When Jesus preached these verses, he was talking to local Jews, not the whole world. So no you won't get thrown into the valley of Gehenna when you die. That's one of the claims you misread. Jesus was talking to Jews who were considering starting a revolution against the Romans again. His answer was, "No, you'll only end up dead if you do that. Better to sort out what's really going on (like the sin in you're own life) and stay alive."
Yes Gehenna or the Valley of Hinnom is referred to in the Old Testament. And it is referred to in the New Testament as well, but you are reinterpreting the references to mean something else (eternal suffering). That's a dangerous way to do interpretation - separating the New Testament from the old like that. Jesus was a Jew who considered himself part of the story that ran all the way through Adam, Abraham, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc. The New Testament is a continuation of that story.
Mostly i go along with NT Wright's work on this stuff. It's a topic that is part of a much bigger discussion about how to read the Bible, how to understand first century culture, the expectations of the Jews in Jesus' day etc etc. Wright is considered (by both religious and non-religious people) to be of the handful of leading experts on first century culture and the early church. If you're actually interested, his book "Surprised by Hope," or his more scholarly "Christian Origins" series goes through all the minute details. But I can't imagine you'd want to get into them, being an atheist and all, so here's an article that has just a few quotes from the book that explain it a little more.
I agree, I will post a reply at the bottom of this topic instead of here.
First and foremost you don't have the proof you CLAIM that the universe is that old. For one thing the red shift is something that some scientists don't like to get into very much because every star all the way around us has a red shift. That doesn't match up with the big bang, because there would be no red shift on the stars that are between earth and the center of the universe. Everything that is coming in the same path that the earth would have already traveled, would not have a red shift. The red shift only happens when a light source is traveling away from you. This has been proven scientifically.
The more reasonable explanation is that God stretched out the Heavens just like he said He did.
I'm not familiar with the science of red shifts, so I'll leave that to you guys. But "stretched out the heavens" in the old testament doesn't mean what you're making it mean. The Hebrew term was commonly used as part of the process of stretching and beating out bronze to make things. It refers to a solid expanse, which is what the ancient writers thought the heavens were. They thought the sky was solid, to hold back "the waters above" (eg. Gen 1). Feel free to debate stuff on scientific terms, but if you're going to quote the Bible, the general rule of thumb is "It can never mean what it never meant."
I believe there is a lot of the Bible that you don't believe. I also believe that the only reason you claim to be a theist is because you have read the Bible or a perversion of it, but have not submitted yourself to God. Here are some verses you probably don't believe.
Isaiah 40:8 KJV
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Psalm 12:6 KJV
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. ....
2 Timothy 3:1-7 KJV
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,  Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,  Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.  For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Proverbs 20:1 KJV
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
You made the foolish statement that the first 11 chapters are not accurate. what are you going to do with these.
Exodus 20:11 KJV
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is , and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Hey Chuck, I'm a theist because I believe in God. More specifically, I believe in the God of the Bible. I follow Jesus as my king, I believe his way is the only one that can bring world peace, and I believe he is the king of the universe, although his kingdom of light and love hasn't come fully into effect yet. I believe that one day God will restore everything that is broken and bring heaven (his realm) and earth (ours) back together, like in the final chapter of the Bible. And that will be the beginning of the next part of the story, and I can't wait to see what that's like.
There are many different types of literature in the Bible, and they all communicate truth. Jesus' parables, for example, are fiction, but they communicate important messages like "love your neighbour as you love yourself." When Paul wrote that the word of God is a double-edged sword, he wasn't suggesting that soldiers could use it to lop off people's heads if they'd misplaced their normal sword. We need to respect the wisdom and creativity of God and the writers he inspired.
Exodus 20:11. The Hebrew word "made" here is "a'sai" which is used a lot throughout the Old Testament and is translated either as "did" or "made." http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6213.htm. It doesn't mean "created from nothing," but is something more like "accomplished." In the creation story it gives the sense of God bringing order to chaos, or function and purpose to something that was "formless and empty." It's the natural completion of the work God did in those 6 days. And to understand what Genesis 1 is about, you have to read it in its original ancient near-Eastern Mesopotamian context. It's not communicating modern science. It's actually a temple story, where the world is set up as the temple that God then "rests," or dwells in - or reigns from. The original readers would have understood this instantly, but it's all very foreign to us in 21st century western nations. But that's a big topic we can talk about another time.
Dumb chuck again hey ive read the bible guess im a theist to and so is everyone on this site. I challenge you to find one atheist member here that has not read the bible.
Many of us have read several holy books including the Quran so maybe i am muslim now lol.
I believe that most of you are simply God haters more so than actual atheists. You seem like you are just trying to get others to deny God, so that you feel justified. That way you can do things that are not only ungodly but are also immoral. Now don't get to mad over that, I'm just giving you my opinion of what I read.
That's a fairly common and erroneous assumption. The other common one is that we all had some sort of traumatic event we couldn't handle, and therefore turned away. Again, the fallacy of these statements is that what you consider "ungodly" and "immoral" must of course be based on what you've been taught or learned.
I could easily say you refuse to realize Brahma has your best interests at heart. So you just claim to deny him so you can eat beef and try to avoid karmic reincarnation.
Islam is quickly gaining ground. Why don't you believe that Mohammed was the new prophet? Maybe you just want to be immoral and let women go around uncovered.
To say we're God haters is like calling you a Santa hater, Zeus hater, or Ahura Mazda hater. We can't hate something that, for many reasons, we don't believe in.
And lastly, why are you here on an openly atheist site? Why can we not just say you're here to convert the masses?
(I'm not angry, so I apologize if any of that sounds angry. I tend to write lots of technical texts, so I'm used to leaving emotion out. Often that comes across as angry or confrontational.)
I'm going to try to put this in a little different way than I did in another post.
God instilled in everyone a sense of right and wrong.
Romans 1:18-22 KJV
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
You see it makes no sense, not even if some man claims that it is possible, that if we evolved from an animal, that we would turn from being immoral to being moral. Look at how wicked man can be with having morals, and yet letting his imagination take him to the point of mass murder, raping, and molesting. You may say they don't have morals. If they didn't it would be a whole lot easier to arrest them. But many that commit such crimes, still walk around among others that are shocked to find out they were capable to do such things. If morals were not instilled in us man would not have came to to the point of having laws that would bring us to be civilized, over satisfying the desires in man's heart. We would continue with the instinct that we had over rules that someone else decided we should follow. If we evolved and one day someone claimed that it was wrong to kill another man to take his food he just killed so that another could feed his family, He would have either slapped him around or killed him. After all what punishment would there have been. Because if he didn't do something to stop the other from restricting him then, the next restriction might be that he couldn't have his way with the next female he wanted.
You see it just doesn't make sense for it to have went that way.
But with God, it all makes sense, considering that He gave us the ability to choose right or wrong, a free will.
I know im ignoring you but couldnt pass up the chance to humiliate you. You just claimed god made people with morality but you have repeatedly claimed only christians are moral. You have also repeatedly claimed atheists cannot be moral but you just claimed your invisible skydaddy made us moral.
Can you not see you dont even know what bullshit to believe. We have proved people were morale before and without big skydaddys religion so now you say oh by the way god designed us with morality.
I should point out the majority of western society have better morals than your god (tho christians morality is only a little bit better) according to your own book.
By the way animals have displayed a morality though obviously only to a degree and only in animals with close ties did big sky daddy make them moral too.
Fact is its more probable that morality is a simple product of evolution as claimed by evolutionary psychologists than built into us by an invisible man that no one has seen (except allegedly by people who died hundreds of years ago and it cannot be verified that they even existed) and has no evidence at all. I would explain how morality evolved but you wouldn't listen.
Ok back to ignoring you feel free to make an ass out of yourself as you usually do.
That doesn't agree with what biologists have found. For example, if a chimpanzee kills another chimpanzee, they shun him and essentially force him to stay away. We just build a wall and call it a prison.
But you didn't answer any of my questions. We can talk morals all day. They're subjective (such as the covered Muslim women I mentioned, or consumption of beef, or Jainists not eating plants requiring their death such as carrots).
Still didn't address the rest.
Odd thing about chimpanzees occasionally for some unknown reason they kill and eat members of a different group. I personally think its instinct telling them they need some nutrient they can only get from meat.
After a deep study on chimpanzees habits, it seems that they like to stick under 1 roof every Sunday :P
I don't think that the theories about the age of the universe is already proven, but even though, I can say that God in the bible is likely real. He works in mysterious ways and we humans can never ever grasp his mind no matter how hard we try; that's why it's easier to conclude that he does not exist. We simply can't comprehend the incomprehensible.
How about the stars, the ones we can see average at 500 trillion per galaxy and there are over 500 trillion galaxies. They are all accelerating away from each other backtracking them is partly how we know the age and gave use the first glimpse of the big bang theory.
Due to the accelleration i nentioned and the astronomical distances without faster than light speed travel we could never explore the closer galaxies let alone the ones farther away.
Does not make sense to make so much wasted matter.
Even if god used the actual method science has discovered our galaxy and solar system was made (and not the fairytale of genesis and i can say that because even the majority of christians now claim genesis was never meant to be taken literally (even tho they killed people for daring to suggest it wasn't real) due to the vast amount of evidence against it) there would be no reason to make the other galaxies.
Funny thing even though the christian churches opposed the big bang theory it was the christians that first thought of it lol