A new look at *The Bible*
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>"The people were taught that the record (Bible) was inspired, and
therefore true. They were not taught that it was true, and therefore
inspired. After all, the real question is not whether the Bible is
inspired, but whether it is true. If the Bible is really true, the
claim of inspiration need not be urged, and if it is not true, its
inspiration can hardly be established. As a matter of fact, the truth
does not need to be inspired. Where truth ends, where probability
stops, inspiration begins. A fact never went into partnership with a
miracle. Truth does not need the assistance of a miracle. A fact will
fit every other fact in the universe because it is the product of all
the other facts. A lie will fit nothing except another lie made for
the express purpose of fitting it."
"As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she
will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within
its lies there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is
regarded as the property of man. She is mad to ask forgiveness for
becoming a mother. She is as much below her husband as her husband is
below Christ. She is not allowed to speak (in the churches). The
gospel is too pure to be spoken by her polluted lips. Women should
learn in silence."
"Man must learn to rely upon himself. Reading Bibles will not protect
him from the blasts of winter, but houses, fires and clothing will. To
prevent famine, one plow is worth a million sermons."
"If Christ, in fact, said, 'I came not to bring peace but a sword', it
is the only prophecy in the New Testament that has been literally
fulfilled
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/ingersolls_views.php
Observer
Lets all learn to learn
Regards
Psychonomist
omprem
<omprem@magma.ca>devise intended to make your bias seem logical. In addition, there
are many propositions contained in your message that need to be proven
but which are instead buried in the verbiage as revealed truth.
bonfly
<anubis2@aapt.net.au>Yet your reply - von 'omprem' - was received similarly to the act of
wiping one's arse with a sharpened cheese grater (swathed with cod
liver oil and yak's blood).
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Oct 26, 6:15 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Your semantic quibble on truth and inspiration is nonsense. It is a
> devise intended to make your bias seem logical. In addition, there
> are many propositions contained in your message that need to be proven
> but which are instead buried in the verbiage as revealed truth.
Observer
Ha Ha Ha Ha ha
Look who's asking for proof. The very *incompetent logician* that
rejects the scientific methods of establishing the value of
information.
Ha Ha Ha ha Ha
Thanks you just shot your self in the foot and the head at the same
time.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Regards
Psychonomist
Read The Bible
<bibleverse2@yahoo.com>> "... To prevent famine, one plow is worth a
> million sermons."
There is more than one kind of famine. In the future,
when the Bible becomes outlawed around the world as
"hate speech", a famine of God's Word will spread
over the globe: "Behold, the days come, saith the
Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not
a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of
hearing the words of the LORD. And they shall wander
from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,
they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the
LORD, and shall not find it" (Amos 8:11-12).
Man needs more than food for his body; he needs food
for his soul: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but
by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God" (Matthew 4:4). "What shall it profit a man, if
he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my
words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of
him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he
cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy
angels" (Mark 8:36-38).
The Bible is a most valuable resource: "All scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may
be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"
(2 Timothy 3:16-17). "Wherefore lay apart all
filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and
receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is
able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word,
and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves"
(James 1:21-22).
Just having enough regular food to eat won't keep
anyone alive forever; but the spiritual food of the
Bible can cause us to be spiritually born again into
eternal life: "Being born again, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which
liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as
grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of
grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof
falleth away, but the word of the Lord endureth for
ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is
preached unto you" (1 Peter 1:23-25).
> Observer quoted: "If Christ, in fact, said, 'I came
> not to bring peace but a sword', it is the only
> prophecy in the New Testament that has been
> literally fulfilled ..."
What Christ said was not literal, but figurative of
the division that would come into those families
where some would become Christians and some wouldn't;
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I
tell you, Nay, but rather division. For from
henceforth there shall be five in one house divided,
three against two, and two against three. The father
shall be divided against the son, and the son against
the father; the mother against the daughter, and the
daughter against the mother; the mother in law
against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law" (Luke 12:51-53).
Christ specifically taught against violence: "Resist
not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew
5:39). "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy
sword into his place, for all they that take the
sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
Ivan Karamazov
<rubinstein@planet.nl>On 27 okt, 12:04, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Observer quoted on Oct 25, 11:36 pm:
> > "... To prevent famine, one plow is worth a
> > million sermons."
>
> There is more than one kind of famine. In the future,
> when the Bible becomes outlawed around the world as
> "hate speech", a famine of God's Word will spread
> over the globe: "Behold, the days come, saith the
> Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not
> a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of
> hearing the words of the LORD. And they shall wander
> from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,
> they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the
> LORD, and shall not find it" (Amos 8:11-12).
>
> Man needs more than food for his body; he needs food
> for his soul:
The Bible is no food, it is poison.
Dave
<dvorous@gmail.com>> > Observer quoted on Oct 25, 11:36 pm:
> > "... To prevent famine, one plow is worth a
> > million sermons."
>
> There is more than one kind of famine. In the future,
> when the Bible becomes outlawed around the world as
Why do you feel the need to base your views on hyperbolic lies?
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Oct 27, 3:04 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Observer quoted on Oct 25, 11:36 pm:
> > "... To prevent famine, one plow is worth a
> > million sermons."
>
> There is more than one kind of famine. In the future,
> when the Bible becomes outlawed around the world as
> "hate speech", a famine of God's Word will spread
> over the globe: "
Observer
No one is suggesting that the buy bull be outlawed. But rather is
should be shown up to be the compendium of filthy primitive myths
that it is.
Behold, the days come, saith the
> Lord GOD,
Observer
Excuse me but there the existence of your primitive mythological god
is a failed hypothesis has not and never will be substantiated. In
other words just dumb ass superstition.
t
>
> Man needs more than food for his body; he needs food
> for his soul:
"
Observer
Ok lets see you provide substantiation that such a thing as a soul
exists.
It is a stupid concept.
<sniped superstitious crap>
>
> The Bible is a most valuable resource: "All scripture
> is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
> instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may
> be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"
Observer
Now that is just plain stupid.
The good works of the chrisitans consists of over fifty million men
women and children being tortured to death to save their souls in the
name of your Christ.
Add to that 700,000 slaughtered in Croatia by the chrisitans and
hundreds of thousands just recently in Rwanda .The Rwandan Genocide
was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis
and moderate Hutu sympathizers in Rwanda and was the largest atrocity
during the Rwandan Civil War. At least 500,000 Tutsis and thousands of
moderate Hutus died in the genocide.
Fuck your Christian love.
> Just having enough regular food to eat won't keep
> anyone alive forever;
Observer
No shit Dick Tracy
Every one dies and all death is permanent in 4.1 million years of
hominids not one has become undead.
but the spiritual food of the
> Bible can cause us to be spiritually born again into
> eternal life:
Observer
Those god merchants are the used car salesmen of superstition and they
got you good . I would ask for my money back. You really got a lemon.
Incidentally your live forever warranty has been canceled.
> > Observer quoted: "If Christ, in fact, said, 'I came
> > not to bring peace but a sword', it is the only
> > prophecy in the New Testament that has been
> > literally fulfilled ..."
>
> What Christ said was not literal, but figurative
Observer
Of course you jack asses switch to the figurative mode when the words
of the buy bull get too embarrassing.
> Christ specifically taught against violence:
Let's see you substantiate that Jesus ever lived and then go on to
prove that is the son of a god who's existence is a million times more
questionable.
If there exists a god It damned sure could not be as inept ans as
sadomasochistic a monster as that described in the buy bull.
I sniped lots of superstitious because reading it is as pleasant and
useful as being vomited on.
I read that crap for decades that is how I learned that it is
hateful ,degrading ,dehumanizing trash.
Reading history taught me of the damage it has done.
Psychonomist.
Annie
<annpaterson@myway.com>omprem wrote:
> Your semantic quibble on truth and inspiration is nonsense. It is a
> devise intended to make your bias seem logical. In addition, there
> are many propositions contained in your message that need to be proven
> but which are instead buried in the verbiage as revealed truth.
>
I didn't think Observer's "quibble" was semantic. And if you are
looking to base your whole life on a book, you want to be pretty sure
it really is the truth.
The Bible simply isn't the truth. It says it's the truth. It says it's
inspired but it is so full of contradictions and half-truths and lies
that it just can't be the truth.
The death of Judas. Either he hanged himself or fell in a ditch. He
can't do both, yet both accounts are in the Bible.
Jesus told the thief on the cross "today you will be in paradise with
me" but then we are told Jesus went to hell.
Jesus told his disciples on a number of occasions that he would return
within their lifetimes. He never showed up.
The Jews' exile in Egypt. Not a shred of archaelogical evidence for
it. The Egyptians were obsessive about writing everything down, but
neglected to mention a large number of foreigners arriving within
their midst?
Genesis can't even get it straight whether people or animals were
created first giving two different accounts in Gen 1 and 2.
I could go on and on and on. To me it seems an open and shut case.
Bible = book written by ignorant goat herders thousands of years ago
with no relevance to me today.
Why people embrace it and insist it is the truth is beyond me. I am
even more mystified by people who insist it is the word of God and
then proceed to cut out the bits they don't like. Either the bible is
the word of God and God wants you to kill fags or it isn't and he
doesn't, but you can't have it both ways.
Read The Bible
<bibleverse2@yahoo.com>> No one is suggesting that the buy bull be outlawed.
Not the whole Bible, just the politically incorrect
parts: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of
season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after
their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn
away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:2-4). "Behold, the word of
the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no
delight in it" (Jeremiah 6:10). "Whosoever therefore
shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this
adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall
the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the
glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38).
> Observer said: ... the buy bull
One doesn't have to buy the Bible; it's free: "He
that hath no money, come ye ... Seek ye the LORD
while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is
near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the
unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto
the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our
God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts
are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than
the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and
my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain
cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth
not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it
bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the
sower, and bread to the eater, so shall my word be
that goeth forth out of my mouth, it shall not return
unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I
please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I
sent it" (Isaiah 55:1,6-11).
> Observer said: ... the buy bull
The Bible isn't bull; it's the Word of God: "All
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16).
> Observer said: But rather is should be shown up to
> be the compendium of filthy primitive myths that it
> is.
The Bible isn't filthy: "The words of the LORD are
pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times" (Psalms 12:6). "Now ye are
clean through the word which I have spoken unto you"
(John 15:3). "Sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word" (Ephesians 5:26).
The Bible isn't primitive, but divinely spiritual;
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). "But the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for
they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned"
(1 Corinthians 2:14).
The Bible isn't myths: "For we have not followed
cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you
the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).
"That which was from the beginning, which we have
heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we
have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the
Word of life. For the life was manifested, and we
have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you
that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was
manifested unto us. That which we have seen and heard
declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship
with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father,
and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:1-3).
> Observer said: ... lets see you provide
> substantiation that such a thing as a soul exists.
Jesus confirmed that souls exist: "Thou fool, this
night thy soul shall be required of thee" (Luke
12:20). "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). "For what is a man profited, if he
shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or
what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
(Matthew 16:26).
> Observer said: The good works of the chrisitans
> consists of over fifty million men women and
> children being tortured to death to save their
> souls in the name of your Christ. Add to that
> 700,000 slaughtered in Croatia by the chrisitans
> and hundreds of thousands just recently in Rwanda
Jesus never said to torture or kill anyone; He said
the opposite: "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew
5:39). "For all they that take the sword shall perish
with the sword" (Matthew 26:52). "Ye are of your
father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye
will do. He was a murderer from the beginning"
(John 8:44). "No murderer hath eternal life abiding
in him" (1 John 3:15). "Murderers ... shall have
their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone" (Revelation 21:8).
Atheists such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, were
responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of
people under their rule.
> Observer said: The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994
> mass killing of hundreds of thousands of ethnic
> Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathizers in Rwanda
> and was the largest atrocity during the Rwandan
> Civil War
It wasn't a religious war; Christianity had no more
to do with those killings than the color of the skin
of those who did the killings.
> Observer said: Fuck your Christian love.
Is that atheist love?
> Observer said: Every one dies and all death is
> permanent in 4.1 million years of hominids not one
> has become undead.
Everyone will be resurrected just as Jesus was
resurrected: "For as in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his
own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward they
that are Christ's at his coming" (1 Corinthians
15:22-23). "Marvel not at this, for the hour is
coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation" (John 5:28-29).
> Observer said: Let's see you substantiate that
> Jesus ever lived
The Gospels of the Bible are the historical record of
Jesus' life. There's no proof against them.
> Observer said: ... and then go on to prove that is
> the son of a god
Jesus said He was the Son of God: "I am the Son of
God" (John 10:36).
> Observer said: If there exists a god It damned sure
> could not be as inept ans as sadomasochistic a
> monster as that described in the buy bull.
Nothing in the Bible shows God as inept,
sadomasochistic, or a monster.
> Observer said: ... it is hateful ,degrading ,
> dehumanizing trash.
The Bible isn't hateful, degrading, dehumanizing,
or trash.
> Observer said: Reading history taught me of the
> damage it has done.
The Bible itself has never done anyone any harm, nor
has it ever taught any Christians to do anyone any
harm. Reading history should have taught one of the
damage atheists have done.
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Annie said on Oct 30, 4:01 am:
> The Bible simply isn't the truth.
There's no proof that it isn't.
> Annie said: ... it is so full of contradictions and
> half-truths and lies
The Bible doesn't teach any contradictions, half-
truths or lies.
> Annie said: The death of Judas. Either he hanged
> himself or fell in a ditch.
The Bible nowhere says that he fell in a ditch.
> Annie said: Jesus told the thief on the cross
> "today you will be in paradise with me" but then we
> are told Jesus went to hell.
The Bible nowhere says that Jesus went to hell when
He died. Jesus' spirit went into heaven when He died;
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
-Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and
having said thus, he gave up the ghost" (Luke 23:46).
He didn't go into hell until three days later, after
His resurrection: "Being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went
and preached unto the spirits in prison"
(1 Peter 3:18-19); "for this cause was the gospel
preached also to them that are dead" (1 Peter 4:6);
"Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also
descended first into the lower parts of the earth?"
(Ephesians 4:9).
> Annie said: Jesus told his disciples on a number of
> occasions that he would return within their
> lifetimes.
No, He didn't.
> Annie said: The Jews' exile in Egypt. Not a shred
> of archaelogical evidence for it.
Not a shred of archaeological evidence against it.
> Annie said: The Egyptians were obsessive about
> writing everything down, but neglected to mention a
> large number of foreigners arriving within their
> midst?
Only seventy foreigners arrived within their midst;
"All the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into
Egypt, were threescore and ten" (Genesis 46:27).
> Annie said: Genesis can't even get it straight
> whether people or animals were created first giving
> two different accounts in Gen 1 and 2.
There's no contradiction in Genesis 1 and 2 because
it's referring to two different things. Genesis
1:25-27 is referring to God's miraculous restoration
of animals and the creation of homo sapiens sapiens
on the planet some 40,000 years ago, while Genesis
2:7-19 is referring to God's miraculous creation of a
single individual named Adam, and then some animals
in a local garden, some 6,000 years ago.
> Annie said: Bible = book ... with no relevance to
> me today.
It has great relevance to everyone today, for it
shows how we are to be saved from hell through Jesus
Christ: "Neither is there salvation in any other, for
there is none other name under heaven given among
men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
> Annie said: Either the bible is the word of God and
> God wants you to kill fags or it isn't and he
> doesn't, but you can't have it both ways.
There are two Covenants in the Bible: the Old
Covenant God made with Israel through Moses, in which
people in Israel who were caught committing sexual
sins, such as adultery or homosexuality, were to
receive the death penalty at the hands of the
Israelites; and the New Covenant God made with Israel
through Jesus, in which people in Israel who were
caught in sexual sins, such as adultery or
homosexuality, were no longer to receive the death
penalty at the hands of the Israelites, but were to
be shown mercy: "And the scribes and Pharisees
brought unto him a woman taken in adultery, and when
they had set her in the midst, they say unto him,
Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very
act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such
should be stoned, but what sayest thou? This they
said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse
him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger
wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So
when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself,
and said unto them, He that is without sin among you,
let him first cast a stone at her. And again he
stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which
heard it, being convicted by their own conscience,
went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even
unto the last, and Jesus was left alone, and the
woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up
himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto
her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no
man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus
said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin
no more" (John 8:3-11).
The two Covenants don't contradict each other because
they were never in effect at the same time; the New
Covenant superseded the Old Covenant: "For there is
verily a disannulling of the commandment going
before" (Hebrews 7:18). God had foretold that the New
Covenant would be different than the Old Covenant;
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah, not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day
that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the
land of Egypt" (Jeremiah 31:31-32).
konrad
<konrad@bryanstonorganicmarket.co.za>Have you actually?
Just one example: Annie states:
> > Jesus told his disciples on a number of
> > occasions that he would return within their
> > lifetimes.
And you reply:
> > No, He didn't.
And I quote:
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)
"All these things" include his return, the Apocolypse and the End of
Days.
Explain?
> sins, such as ...
>
> read more »
Annie
<annpaterson@myway.com>Read The Bible wrote:
> > Annie said: The death of Judas. Either he hanged
> > himself or fell in a ditch.
>
> The Bible nowhere says that he fell in a ditch.
Okay, I have to admit I was wrong about that. The Bible does not
specify he fell in a ditch, simply that he fell over in a field. So
what's your point? He still can't have done both. One story must be
false. Possibly both are false, but both can't be true.
Matthew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then
he went away and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a
field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his
intestines spilled out.
Delightful.
>
> > Annie said: Jesus told the thief on the cross
> > "today you will be in paradise with me" but then we
> > are told Jesus went to hell.
>
> The Bible nowhere says that Jesus went to hell when
> He died. Jesus' spirit went into heaven when He died;
> "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
> -Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and
> having said thus, he gave up the ghost" (Luke 23:46).
> He didn't go into hell until three days later, after
> His resurrection:
That makes no sense. You are saying he went to hell after he came back
to life.
"Being put to death in the flesh,
> but quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went
> and preached unto the spirits in prison"
> (1 Peter 3:18-19); "for this cause was the gospel
> preached also to them that are dead" (1 Peter 4:6);
> "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also
> descended first into the lower parts of the earth?"
> (Ephesians 4:9).
Now I must admit this quote isn't from the Bible itself, but the
Apostle's Creed, which dates back to the very early church.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
Now ask yourself, in light of the above beliefs, does this statement
make any sense?
Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will
be with me in paradise."
>
> > Annie said: Jesus told his disciples on a number of
> > occasions that he would return within their
> > lifetimes.
>
> No, He didn't.
So then, what exactly is he trying to say here?
Matthew 23:36 Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this
generation.
Matthew 24:29-35 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the
sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the
stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be
shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven,
and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son
of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will
gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to
the other. "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes
tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same
way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the
gates. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until
all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away,
but my words will not pass away.
Matthew 16:28 "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of
death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Mark 13:30-31 Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away
until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass
away, but my words will not pass away.
Mark 9:1 He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some
standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom
of God has come in power."
Luke 9:27 "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will
not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."
>
> > Annie said: The Jews' exile in Egypt. Not a shred
> > of archaelogical evidence for it.
>
> Not a shred of archaeological evidence against it.
You do realise that is a very crap argument don't you? There is no
evidence that I am not a big green alien. So I must be. Anyway. The
theory that there were no Jews in Egypt, no Exodus, no Ten Plagues etc
is not new and there are scholars supporting both sides. However, I
thought I'd share a little bit of this article I found by a Rabbi.
Yes, a Rabbi. If he can handle it, maybe so can you.
Did the Exodus Really Happen?
Rabbi David Wolpe
Three years ago on Passover, I explained to my congregation that
according to archeologists, there was no reliable evidence that the
Exodus took place--and that it almost certainly did not take place the
way the Bible recounts it. Finally, I emphasized: It didn't matter.
Some argue that there is no evidence to back my assertion. Endlessly
reiterated is the mantra "absence of evidence does not mean evidence
of absence." In other words, the fact that we have never found a
single shred of evidence in the Sinai does not mean the Israelites
were not there.
This is nominally true. We have found Sinai evidence of other people
who predated the Israelites, and while it is improbable that 600,000
men crossed the desert 2,500 years ago without leaving a shard of
pottery or a Hebrew carving, it is not impossible. (Together with
women and children, that makes a couple of million, who could actually
fill the distance between Egypt and Israel by standing in line.) One
rabbi quoted to me the mystical tradition that one tribe was deputized
to clean up every trace, which at least shows the Jewish tradition's
unease with Sinai's preternaturally clean slate.
However, the archeological conclusions are not based primarily on the
absence of Sinai evidence. Rather, they are based upon the study of
settlement patterns in Israel itself. Surveys of ancient settlements--
pottery remains and so forth--make it clear that there simply was no
great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously
as between 1500-1200 BCE). Therefore, not the wandering, but the
arrival alerts us to the fact that the biblical Exodus is not a
literal depiction.
...
Some people are surprised, even upset, by these views. Yet they are
not new; such views have been a staple of scholarship, even appearing
in popular magazines, for many years. Not piety but timidity keeps
many rabbis from expressing what they have long understood to be true.
As a scholar who took me to task in print told me privately over
lunch, "Of course what you say is true, but we should not say it
publicly." In other words, tell the truth, but not when too many
people will be listening.
...
A tradition cannot make an historical claim and then refuse to have it
evaluated by history. It is not an historical claim that God created
us and cares for us. That a certain number of people walked across a
particular desert at a particular time in the past, after being
enslaved and liberated, is an historical claim, and one cannot then
cry "unfair" when historians evaluate it.
...
>
> > Annie said: Genesis can't even get it straight
> > whether people or animals were created first giving
> > two different accounts in Gen 1 and 2.
>
> There's no contradiction in Genesis 1 and 2 because
> it's referring to two different things. Genesis
> 1:25-27 is referring to God's miraculous restoration
> of animals and the creation of homo sapiens sapiens
> on the planet some 40,000 years ago, while Genesis
> 2:7-19 is referring to God's miraculous creation of a
> single individual named Adam, and then some animals
> in a local garden, some 6,000 years ago.
>
Umm, yeah that's really clear in the passages. Lets let the punters
decide...
Genesis 1:24-27 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the
earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing
that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was
good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created
he them.
Pretty straightfoward. Animals, then people.
Genesis 2:7-8 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and
there he put the man whom he had formed. ... Genesis 2:18-23 And the
LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will
make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God
formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and
brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever
Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam
gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every
beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for
him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead
thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because
she was taken out of Man.
Less straightforward - Man, animals, woman.
However, I will accept that there is a possibility that with
translation problems etc, it could be taken in the second quote that
God had previously created the animals and was now bringing them to
Adam to be named.
>
> There are two Covenants in the Bible: the Old
> Covenant God made with Israel through Moses, in which
> people in Israel who were caught committing sexual
> sins, such as adultery or homosexuality, were to
> receive the death penalty at the hands of the
> Israelites; and the New Covenant God made with Israel
> through Jesus, in which people in Israel who were
> caught in sexual sins, such as adultery or
> homosexuality, were no longer to receive the death
> penalty at the hands of the Israelites, but were to
> be shown mercy:
<snip heartwarming story>
>
> The two Covenants don't contradict each other because
> they were never in effect at the same time; the New
> Covenant superseded the Old Covenant: "For there is
> verily a disannulling of the commandment going
> before" (Hebrews 7:18). God had foretold that the New
> Covenant would be different than the Old Covenant;
> "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will
> make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
> with the house of Judah, not according to the
> covenant that I made with their fathers in the day
> that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the
> land of Egypt" (Jeremiah 31:31-32).
I am not the first here to ask this, and probably not the last. If the
Old Covenant (ie OT) is so irrelevant now, why not just chuck it out?
And BTW, God is not exactly super with gay people in the NT either.
Read The Bible
<bibleverse2@yahoo.com>That doesn't have to refer to the temporal generation
in the time of Jesus, but could refer to the temporal
generation that sees the rebudding of the fig tree
in Matthew 24:32-33. The fig tree could represent the
nation of Israel (Hosea 9:10), and its rebudding
could represent the re-establishment of the nation of
Israel in 1947. If a temporal generation usually
passes away after 70 years (Psalms 90:10), then
Matthew 24:34 could be saying that the apocalypse and
the second coming of Jesus Christ will be fulfilled
before 2017.
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Annie said on Oct 31, 8:26 am: Matthew 27:5 ...
> Acts 1:18
There's no contradiction because after he hanged
himself, something could have happened which released
him before he was strangled. For example, if he hung
himself on a tree branch, the branch could have
broken under his weight.
> Annie said: You are saying [Jesus] went to hell
> after he came back to life.
Not to be punished, but to preach the gospel to those
in hell (1 Peter 3:18-19, 4:6, Ephesians 4:9).
> Annie said: ... the Apostle's Creed
That's a misnomer; it wasn't written by the apostles.
The Bible nowhere says that Jesus went into hell
before His resurrection.
> Annie said: Matthew 23:36
That could be referring to the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 AD; "these things" are the past
persecutions of righteous people (Matthew 23:35), the
guilt and punishment of which would be laid upon
the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem.
> Annie said: Matthew 16:28
-Fulfilled at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-5,
Mark 9:1-7, Luke 9:27-35; 2 Peter 1:16-18).
> Annie said: Mark 13:30-31
Could refer to the generation that sees the re-
establishment of the nation of Israel (Mark
13:28-29; See top of post).
> Annie said: [Re: Not a shred of archaeological
> evidence against the Jews' exile in Egypt]
> You do realise that is a very crap argument don't
> you? There is no evidence that I am not a big green
> alien. So I must be.
No, the fact that there is no archaeological evidence
against Israel's exile in Egypt isn't proof that
there was an exile, just as the fact that there is no
as yet discovered archaeological evidence for the
exile in Egypt isn't proof that there wasn't an
exile, so there's no reason to reject the Bible's
historical account of it.
> Annie said: The theory that there were no Jews in
> Egypt, no Exodus, no Ten Plagues etc is not new and
> there are scholars supporting both sides.
Which just goes to show that there's no proof against
the Bible, merely unproven opinions.
> Annie quoted Wolpe: ... according to archeologists,
> there was no reliable evidence that the Exodus took
> place
That's different than saying that there is reliable
evidence that the Exodus didn't take place. The
account of the Exodus in the Bible is historical
evidence that it did take place; the Bible has never
been proven unreliable in any of its historical
accounts.
> Annie quoted Wolpe: ... [The Exodus] almost
> certainly did not take place the way the Bible
> recounts it.
There's no proof that it didn't take place exactly
the way the Bible recounts it.
> Annie quoted Wolpe: ... it is improbable that
> 600,000 men crossed the desert 2,500 years ago
> without leaving a shard of pottery or a Hebrew
> carving
That implies that the Israelites in the Exodus were
so clumsy that they were constantly breaking their
pots, or that they practiced graffiti. It is
improbable that one would even know where to dig,
much less dig right where someone happened to break a
pot. And the precinct of Sinai was so holy the
Israelites wouldn't have left any litter behind, much
less carved grafitti into the mountain they were not
even allowed to touch lest they die (Exodus 19:12).
> Annie quoted Wolpe: Surveys of ancient
> settlements-- pottery remains and so forth--make it
> clear that there simply was no great influx of
> people around the time of the Exodus (given
> variously as between 1500-1200 BCE).
Again, this implies that the Israelites were great
pot-breakers who never cleaned up after themselves.
They didn't enter Canaan to break pots, but to live
in the cities and houses already there (Deuteronomy
6:10-11); and the Israelites replaced the people who
lived there before them, so there would not
necessarily have been any great change in the number
of people in Canaan after the Conquest.
> Annie quoted Wolpe: ... the arrival alerts us to
> the fact that the biblical Exodus is not a literal
> depiction.
Nothing requires that it isn't literal.
> Annie quoted Wolpe: ... such views have been a
> staple of scholarship, even appearing in popular
> magazines, for many years.
"Scholarship" can mean nothing more than "unproven
opinions", and what does something appearing in
"popular magazines" prove?
> Annie quoted Wolpe: A tradition cannot make an
> historical claim and then refuse to have it
> evaluated by history.
There's no historical proof against the Exodus.
> Annie quoted Wolpe: It is not an historical claim
> that God created us and cares for us.
It is, for Genesis 2:7-25 is an historical account.
> Annie quoted Wolpe: That a certain number of people
> walked across a particular desert at a particular
> time in the past, after being enslaved and
> liberated, is an historical claim, and one cannot
> then cry "unfair" when historians evaluate it.
"Unfair", nay "wrong", comes in when people make the
claim that historians have somehow disproven the
Bible; they never have been able to, so there's no
reason to reject the Bible.
> Annie said: Genesis 1:24-27 ...
> Genesis [2:7-8,18-23] ... it could be taken in the
> second quote that God had previously created the
> animals and was now bringing them to Adam to be
> named.
Genesis 1:24-27 could refer to global events 34,000
years before Genesis 2:7-8,18-23, which refers only
to events in a local garden some 6,000 years ago.
> Annie said: If the Old Covenant (ie OT) is so
> irrelevant now, why not just chuck it out?
The Old Covenant itself has been chucked in that it's
no longer applicable (Hebrews 7:18). But there's no
reason to chuck the Old Testament because it's still
a useful historical record of God's past dealings
with Israel (1 Corinthians 10:11), and it also
contains Psalms and Proverbs, and many prophecies of
Jesus which He fulfilled at His first coming (Luke
24:44-47), and many prophecies of Jesus which He will
fulfill at His second coming.
> Annie said: God is not exactly super with gay
> people in the NT either.
Right, homosexual acts are still a sin in the New
Testament (Romans 1:26-27), but they, like other
sins, can be forgiven if one repents from them
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11) and confesses them to God
(1 John 1:9). But if one continues in sin without
repentance one will be lost (Luke 13:3, Hebrews
10:26-31). That's why Jesus preached repentance
(Mark 1:15).
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>Offer support for the veracity of the Bible and the Christian notion
of God without using the Bible.
Hugh Jorgan
<sammons.david@gmail.com>> of God without using the Bible.
I agree with Draferman. Unless there is some other useful argument
for the Christian experience other than exerpts from their book, it
really is no different than having the Mormons knock on my door and
quote the Mormon Bible, or having a radical jihadist quote to Koran,
or (trying not to offend), having my child quote "Her comes Santa
Claus" as proof as Santa.
As I've read through the posts, I'm not really sure which argument was
a "new" look at the Bible. I haven't heard on in years.
CHALLENGE: Christians, return and argue your beloved book once you
can read it in the language it was written in! I find it very
disconcerting that scores of religious arguments are presented on
translations of translations of text. To me, this demonstrates that
belief in your god is based on word of mouth, or someone else's
interpretation rather than your own. If you were truly committed, you
would take the time to learn to read it in it's native tongue. At
least I would have some respect for you.
As for your comments on Bible history, sin, the second coming...none
of these have done anything to help your original post on your capital
"T" truth seem more logical. As with ALL religious people, your
perception is your reality. I am not interested in trying to convert
you that there is no god, but religious people always seem to be
interested in convincing me that there is one.
Convince me. Offer anything other than a biased text. As Drafterman
said, use some other resource than a biased book. Otherwise you
haven't separated yourself, or made your argument anymore persuasive
than any other religion.
Cheers
Hugh
Annie
<annpaterson@myway.com>Read The Bible wrote:
>
> There's no contradiction because after he hanged
> himself, something could have happened which released
> him before he was strangled. For example, if he hung
> himself on a tree branch, the branch could have
> broken under his weight.
>
Hmm. I was expecting the usual crap about "oh yes, but in the second
account Judas is sybolic of the nation of Israel..." or something, but
not something as downright silly as this. You say "there is no
contradiction." There bloody well is. One account says he hanged
himself, the other says he fell over. That is a contradiction.
You can speculate all you like about how maybe the branch broke or
maybe a passing spacecraft sucked him out of the tree or something,
but the Bible does not mention that. Would not the Bible say he
"attempted" to hang himself? Or perhaps recount how he gathered up his
guts, went over to a tree and hanged himself with his own intestines?
(Another oh-so-likely possibility).
I wonder how you reconcile yourself with the fact that your god is so
feeble and bumbling that he can't even get a decent holy book
together, and now you are left to defend it with silly arguments like
this one.
Now about the Apostle's creed. I do realise it is not authored by the
apostles, but it is a very early church document, being written within
50 years of the last writings of the NT. It has been adopted by all
reformed churches as a statement of their faith. Perhaps you belong to
a different type of church and don't believe it. That's fine. What I
still don't understand is how Jesus can have gone to hell AFTER his
resurrection. Surely the fact that he has resurrected means he is
walking around on earth, not in hell, whether being punished or
ministering. BTW, what use is it hearing the gospel in hell? You're in
hell already. Does Jesus still preach the gospel in hell? If not, why
not? Why did only those people get a second chance?
I have to go to bed now. I will address the other matters in another
post.
Cheers
Annie
<annpaterson@myway.com>I'll Be Back
For someone who often spoke in riddles and parables, Jesus was
actually quite clear about the timeframe in which he would return.
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)
On other words, he planned to return within the lifetimes of those who
were standing there, 2000 or so years ago. Either there are some
really old people in the world who have escaped the attention of
science, or he must have, well, lied.
The author of 1 Peter seems to think that the end is nigh, with his
advice to "watch and pray" (1 Peter 4:7), but as time goes on, all the
original gang dead, and still no sign of angels trumpeting the arrival
of Jesus, the church fathers are faced with a PR nightmare and go into
damage control, writing another letter, 2 Peter, in which they
theorise that heavenly time is different to earthly time. (2 Peter
3:8-10)
Reasonable explanation I suppose, but where did they get that
information from? There's nothing anywhere else in the Scriptures
about a time-lag between heaven and earth, and Jesus never mentioned
it either. He said he would return within the lifetimes of the people
he was addressing. That's what he said. But he didn't. Draw your own
conclusion.
The Stones Shall Cry Out
"Archaeology has never disproved anything in the Bible." I wonder if
Christians think if they say it often enough maybe it will come true.
I don't want to go into great detail here, because if you think that
finding pottery fragments means the Jews were "clumsy" you are either
not taking this very seriously, or you're just a dickhead, and in
either case it's not worth me wasting my time.
I will first acknowledge that yes, there have been archaeological
discoveries which confirmed the existence of certain places or people
mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean that the Bible is either
the word of God or completely accurate in every way.
In fact, regarding many events in the Bible, there is a deafening
silence from the stones. The Exodus, King Solomon's temple, the great
flood and so on. The slaughter of 200 infant boys by King Herod is
only recorded in the book of Matthew. One would think such a
horrendous event would be recorded by Jewish and Roman contemporaries,
but no other accounts can be found. Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus,
who made special effort to record the evil deeds of tyrants did not
mention it. Neither did Josephus, a Jewish historian who made detailed
records of a lifetime of Herod's activities.
I realise that the absence of evidence is not evidence in itself, but
it certainly helps when evidence is there. If I were to assert that
Australian Aborigines invented a piano, but had no artefacts to prove
it, I could argue that somewhere under the vast desert sands of
Australia there COULD lie the remains of an ancient Aboriginal piano.
There could be an ancient Aboriginal washing machine, hairdryer,
stubbie-holder and space shuttle out there for all we know, or buried
under a suburban shopping centre. But to firmly believe that
Aborigines invented a piano simply because there is no evidence that
they DIDN'T invent a piano is absurd.
Also in reply to the claim that "archaeology has never disproved
anything in the Bible" I would have to point out that there is
overwhelming evidence to prove the world was not created 40,000 years
ago in six days, that birds did not appear on the earth before
reptiles, and it is the earth that moves, not the sun.
There are other factual errors in the Bible which we do not need
fossil or archaelogical evidence to disprove. For instance Leviticus
11:6 states that hares chew cud. Hares do not chew cud and never have.
Ezekiel claims that after the city Tyre is destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar
it will never be rebuilt ever again. Tyre was rebuilt. It was also
destroyed again a couple of times, but it still exists today and can
be located on a modern map of Lebanon.
The only reason I can see for believing the Bible is that you want to
believe and it makes you feel comfortable, certainly not for its
veracity and consistency.
And I'm not even going to address the Genesis discrepancy. If you
seriously believe the earth is only 40,000 years old, you are a lost
cause. Open your eyes. The truth will set you free.
Read The Bible
<bibleverse2@yahoo.com>> for the veracity of the Bible and the Christian
> notion of God without using the Bible.
There's no proof against the veracity of the Bible or
the existence of God, so there's no reason to reject
them. If someone doesn't believe the Bible just by
reading it (Romans 10:17), he wouldn't believe the
Bible because of any support for the Bible outside of
the Bible (Luke 16:31). If someone doesn't believe in
the existence of God just by seeing everything that
exists (Romans 1:19-20, Psalms 19:1-4), he wouldn't
believe in the existence of God through any
intellectual argument (Romans 1:21-22, Psalms 53:1).
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Hugh Jorgan said on Nov 1, 6:24 am: As with ALL
> religious people, your perception is your reality.
That's true for all people, religious or not. Those
who reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ do so because
their perception has been blinded by Satan
(2 Corinthians 4:3-4); Satan actively works against
people believing the Bible (Luke 8:12).
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Annie said Nov 1, 7:17 am: One account says [Judas]
> hanged himself, the other says he fell over. That
> is a contradiction.
It isn't because after he hung himself, something
could have released him before he was strangled to
death.
> Annie said: Would not the Bible say he "attempted"
> to hang himself?
Not necessarily, for the point of Matthew 27:5 is to
show the extent of Judas' remorse, not how he
actually died.
> Annie said: ... the Apostle's creed ... written
> within 50 years of the last writings of the NT.
That's long enough for it to contain something the
apostles never taught: that Jesus went into hell
before His resurrection.
> Annie said: ... the fact that he has resurrected
> means he is walking around on earth, not in hell
He did both (Ephesians 4:9).
> Annie said: ... what use is it hearing the gospel
> in hell?
Hades contained an area called "Abraham's bosom"
where the Old Testament believers (Hebrews 11:13)
were kept away from the fiery area where unbelievers
were tormented (Luke 16:22-28). Jesus went to preach
to the Old Testament believers the completion of the
Gospel (1 Peter 1:10-12, Hebrews 11:39-40), and then
He took them up into heaven with Him (Ephesians
4:8-9).
*******
(A Subsequent Post)
> Annie said on Nov 2, 12:19 am: Matthew 16:28
That was fulfilled at the transfiguration which
followed (Matthew 17:1-5, Mark 9:1-7; 2 Peter
1:16-18).
> Annie said: The author of 1 Peter seems to think
> that the end is nigh
All of the apostles thought that it was, but nothing
they say or Jesus says ever requires that Jesus
return within their lifetimes.
> Annie said: ... the church fathers ... writing
> another letter, 2 Peter
There's no proof that 2 Peter wasn't written by Peter
himself (2 Peter 1:1).
> Annie said: There's nothing anywhere else in the
> Scriptures about a time-lag between heaven and
> earth
2 Peter 3:8 is from Psalms 90:4.
> Annie said: [Jesus] said he would return within the
> lifetimes of the people he was addressing.
Nothing He says ever requires that.
> Annie said: ... regarding many events in the Bible,
> there is a deafening silence from the stones. The
> Exodus, King Solomon's temple, the great flood and
> so on.
That's different than saying "Regarding many events
in the Bible, there is a contradiction from the
stones". Nothing in archaeology has ever contradicted
the Bible. The Exodus was the transient passing of
a people over a deserted wasteland; there wouldn't
necessarily be anything archaeological to find,
assuming one would even know exactly where to look,
besides Mount Sinai, which was so Holy the Israelites
couldn't even touch it (Exodus 19:12-13). After the
destruction of King Solomon's Temple by the
Babylonians, all of its stones could have been
subsequently removed by those wishing to reuse them
in other buildings. Regarding the flood, God could
have cleaned up the earth real good after it; so
there wouldn't be any record in the stones to find.
And even if there were archaeological finds which
supported a journey of the Israelites from Egypt
to Israel, and supported the existence of King
Solomon's Temple, and supported a worldwide flood,
this wouldn't make any unbeliever believe the Bible's
accounts of these things; unbelievers could still
claim that the Bible's accounts were mere myths
attached to real things, and that none of real
things require the actual existence of the Bible God.
> Annie said: The slaughter of 200 infant boys by
> King Herod is only recorded in the book of Matthew.
> One would think such a horrendous event would be
> recorded by Jewish and Roman contemporaries, but no
> other accounts can be found.
Keyword "found"; other records may simply not have
been found yet. And most records from that time were
destroyed by the ravages of time, so there may have
been many records of the slaughter which were
destroyed. Matthew survived because the church
revered it as scripture. The unbelieving Jews and
Romans would have had no incentive to revere their
records of the slaughter. Not every historical event
from that time has two different surviving records of
it. There is no proof that the slaughter didn't take
place.
> Annie said: Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, who
> made special effort to record the evil deeds of
> tyrants did not mention it. Neither did Josephus, a
> Jewish historian who made detailed records of a
> lifetime of Herod's activities.
To mention it, Tacitus would have had to mention the
motive for it, and that would have required him to
get into an explanation of Jewish Messianic
prophecies and who Jesus of Nazareth was, something
he and his intended Roman readers may have had no
interest in whatsoever; so he could have decided to
avoid the subject of the slaughter altogether. Or, he
could have written a full discussion of it which was
later banned by a Roman emperor who hated
Christianity. Or, he could have written a full
discussion of it which was contained in writings of
Tacitus which are missing.
Josephus could have avoided the subject of the
slaughter so as to avoid having to explain its
motive; as an unbeliever, he could have not wished
to give any historical record of Jesus of Nazareth
which could be used by his followers in support of
their beliefs. And/or, he could have not wished to
offend his intended Roman readers, especially the
Emperor, with accounts of a Jew who, in the time of
the Roman Emperors, dared to claim that he was the
Divine Son of God and a King with all power in
heaven and in earth. Or, Josephus could have given a
full account of Jesus which was later banned by
unbelieving Jews and Romans who hated anything to do
with Christianity.
> Annie said: ... to firmly believe that Aborigines
> invented a piano simply because there is no
> evidence that they DIDN'T invent a piano is absurd.
That's a false analogy, for the Bible is an ancient
historical document which has never been proven
false; there's no reason to disbelieve its positive
historical evidence.
> Annie said: ... there is overwhelming evidence to
> prove the world was not created 40,000 years ago in
> six days, that birds did not appear on the earth
> before reptiles
Genesis 1:1 could refer to God's original creation
of the earth and its atmosphere some 5 billion years
ago. About a billion years ago, He could have seeded
the earth with rudimentary life forms which over time
evolved into all the fossilized life forms. Then a
comet could have struck the earth which ruined its
atmosphere and surface, and rendered all evolved life
extinct; Genesis 1:2 could show the condition of the
earth after this cataclysm. Genesis 1:3-2:4 could
then show God, in six literal days, miraculously
restoring the earth's atmosphere and all the life
forms which existed on the earth before the
cataclysm, plus one new life form, homo sapiens
sapiens. The six days of Genesis 1:3-2:4 could have
happened 40,000 years ago, as that is when homo
sapiens sapiens suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
> Annie said: ... it is the earth that moves, not the
> sun.
The Bible nowhere requires that the earth doesn't
orbit the sun.
> Annie said: There are other factual errors in the
> Bible
The Bible teaches no factual errors (2 Timothy 3:16).
> Annie said: Leviticus 11:6 states that hares chew
> cud.
The ancient Hebrew word translated as "cud" wasn't
as restricted in its usage as our modern English word
"cud" is; the ancient Hebrew word could be used to
refer to any instance where an animal re-chewed food
it had already swallowed. Hares do this when they eat
some of their own droppings.
> Annie said: Ezekiel claims that after the city Tyre
> is destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar it will never be
> rebuilt ever again.
The original Hebrew of Ezekiel 26:14 doesn't require
that; it could simply mean that after Nebuchadnezzar
was done with Tyre, it would no longer be a city; it
wouldn't have any buildings left in it; it would be
"built no more".
> Annie said: The only reason I can see for believing
> the Bible is that you want to believe and it makes
> you feel comfortable, certainly not for its
> veracity and consistency.
It's never been proven that the Bible teaches any
lies or contradictions. People don't believe the
Bible because they want to believe it, but because
God has granted them the gift of faith (Ephesians
2:8, John 6:65,44, Acts 13:48). Believing the Bible
can make even believers uncomfortable, when they're
in unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-31); this is one
reason why even some people who claim to be believers
can keep away from the Bible and instead follow
teachers who tell them that their favorite lust is
okay (2 Timothy 4:2-4). Those to whom God is trying
to give the gift of faith can harden their hearts
(Hebrews 3:15) against it, because they don't want to
have to feel guilty about their sin (John 3:19-20).
Once we have repented from our sin and confessed it
to God, only then does the Bible make us feel
comfortable that God has forgiven us for our sin
and cleansed us from it through Jesus Christ (1 John
1:9,7). But until we repent, the Bible is meant to
make us feel uncomfortable about continuing in our
sin (Luke 12:5, 13:3).
> Annie said: Open your eyes. The truth will set you
> free.
If we are willing to give up our sins, God is able to
open our eyes and deliver us from the power of Satan
(Acts 26:18), and to set us free from the power of
sin, through faith in Jesus Christ (John 8:34-36;
1 John 3:5-10).
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>> > Drafterman said on Nov 1, 5:48 am: Offer support
> > for the veracity of the Bible and the Christian
> > notion of God without using the Bible.
>
> There's no proof against the veracity of the Bible or
> the existence of God, so there's no reason to reject
> them.
That isn't what I asked. I asked for proof of the veracity of the
Bible. Lack of proof against the veracity of the Bible is not proof of
its veracity. Try again.
> If someone doesn't believe the Bible just by
> reading it (Romans 10:17),
And you used the Bible. Can't even abide simply instructions?
> to God, only then does the Bible make us ...
>
> read more »
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On Nov 3, 4:43 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Drafterman said on Nov 1, 5:48 am: Offer support
> > for the veracity of the Bible and the Christian
> > notion of God without using the Bible.
>
> There's no proof against the veracity of the Bible or
> the existence of God, so there's no reason to reject
> them.
Likewise, until there is proof for the existence of God, there is no
reason to accept it.
> If someone doesn't believe the Bible just by
> reading it (Romans 10:17), he wouldn't believe the
> Bible because of any support for the Bible outside of
> the Bible (Luke 16:31).
I agree.
> If someone doesn't believe in
> the existence of God just by seeing everything that
> exists (Romans 1:19-20, Psalms 19:1-4), he wouldn't
> believe in the existence of God through any
> intellectual argument (Romans 1:21-22, Psalms 53:1).
>
Arguments are not synonymous with proof or evidence, so it is rational
that people do not.
> > Annie said: ... to firmly believe that Aborigines
> > invented a piano simply because there is no
> > evidence that they DIDN'T invent a piano is absurd.
>
> That's a false analogy, for the Bible is an ancient
> historical document which has never been proven
> false;
It has, the scale, sequence, and relative times of the six yom
creation account has been proven false.
> there's no reason to disbelieve its positive
> historical evidence.
>
Which is what?
> > Annie said: There are other factual errors in the
> > Bible
>
> The Bible teaches no factual errors (2 Timothy 3:16).
>
Correct, it is a book.
Annie
<annpaterson@myway.com>Read The Bible wrote:
>
>
> Not necessarily, for the point of Matthew 27:5 is to
> show the extent of Judas' remorse, not how he
> actually died.
Would not the Bible simply say he was really remorseful, rather than
providing a false account of his death to make a point?
>
> > Annie said: ... the Apostle's creed ... written
> > within 50 years of the last writings of the NT.
>
> That's long enough for it to contain something the
> apostles never taught: that Jesus went into hell
> before His resurrection.
>
Hmm.. was it you or another poster who insists that 50 years is
practically nothing when it comes to ancient writings. The fact that
every reformed church has adopted this creed means what... that you
know better than they do?
> > Annie said: ... the fact that he has resurrected
> > means he is walking around on earth, not in hell
>
> He did both (Ephesians 4:9).
>
> > Annie said: ... what use is it hearing the gospel
> > in hell?
>
> Hades contained an area called "Abraham's bosom"
> where the Old Testament believers (Hebrews 11:13)
> were kept away from the fiery area where unbelievers
> were tormented (Luke 16:22-28). Jesus went to preach
> to the Old Testament believers the completion of the
> Gospel (1 Peter 1:10-12, Hebrews 11:39-40), and then
> He took them up into heaven with Him (Ephesians
> 4:8-9).
>
You fail to answer my other questions. Does Jesus still hang out in
hell preaching the gospel. If not, why not? Why were those people the
only ones to have a second chance?
>
> > Annie said: [Jesus] said he would return within the
> > lifetimes of the people he was addressing.
>
> Nothing He says ever requires that.
The fact that he says it plain and simple requires that he follows
through.
>
> > Annie said: ... regarding many events in the Bible,
> > there is a deafening silence from the stones. The
> > Exodus, King Solomon's temple, the great flood and
> > so on.
>
> Regarding the flood, God could
> have cleaned up the earth real good after it; so
> there wouldn't be any record in the stones to find.
No matter how "real good" God cleaned up after the flood, there is not
enough water on the face of the earth to cause a global flood. God
obviously sucked the excess water off the face of the earth too? Grow
up and grow a brain.
>
> And even if there were archaeological finds which
> supported a journey of the Israelites from Egypt
> to Israel, and supported the existence of King
> Solomon's Temple, and supported a worldwide flood,
> this wouldn't make any unbeliever believe the Bible's
> accounts of these things; unbelievers could still
> claim that the Bible's accounts were mere myths
> attached to real things, and that none of real
> things require the actual existence of the Bible God.
Quite true. Because no matter how many ancient cities you unearth,
nothing can prove the existence of God.
>
>
> That's a false analogy, for the Bible is an ancient
> historical document which has never been proven
> false;
That's bullshit. It has been proven false a gazillion times by the end
of Genesis!!
there's no reason to disbelieve its positive
> historical evidence.
>
> > Annie said: ... there is overwhelming evidence to
> > prove the world was not created 40,000 years ago in
> > six days, that birds did not appear on the earth
> > before reptiles
>
> Genesis 1:1 could refer to God's original creation
> of the earth and its atmosphere some 5 billion years
> ago. About a billion years ago, He could have seeded
> the earth with rudimentary life forms which over time
> evolved into all the fossilized life forms. Then a
> comet could have struck the earth which ruined its
> atmosphere and surface, and rendered all evolved life
> extinct; Genesis 1:2 could show the condition of the
> earth after this cataclysm. Genesis 1:3-2:4 could
> then show God, in six literal days, miraculously
> restoring the earth's atmosphere and all the life
> forms which existed on the earth before the
> cataclysm, plus one new life form, homo sapiens
> sapiens. The six days of Genesis 1:3-2:4 could have
> happened 40,000 years ago, as that is when homo
> sapiens sapiens suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Homo sapiens did not "suddenly appear out of nowhere". That fact has
been firmly established and cannot be argued with.
>
> > Annie said: ... it is the earth that moves, not the
> > sun.
>
> The Bible nowhere requires that the earth doesn't
> orbit the sun.
There are a few passages that say the sun moves across the sky etc but
I can't be bothered looking them up now. I know that sounds pissweak,
but since you love reading the bible so much you can look for them and
come up with a shitty excuse why they don't "require" the truth to
apply to them. That's all you're full of - excuses, not explanations.
Like 2 Peter. Who cares who wrote it. The author whether it be Peter
or Buzz Lightyear, is full of shit.
>
> > Annie said: There are other factual errors in the
> > Bible
>
> The Bible teaches no factual errors (2 Timothy 3:16).
>
You can't take the word of the source that the source is perfect.
> > Annie said: Leviticus 11:6 states that hares chew
> > cud.
>
> The ancient Hebrew word translated as "cud" wasn't
> as restricted in its usage as our modern English word
> "cud" is; the ancient Hebrew word could be used to
> refer to any instance where an animal re-chewed food
> it had already swallowed. Hares do this when they eat
> some of their own droppings.
I knew you'd come up with that old chestnut. Rabbits do that, not
hares. Newsflash a hare is not a rabbit. God would know the difference
between a hare and a rabbit. Droppings are not cud. Cud is produced
only by a family of animals known as ruminants who have multiple
stomachs. Rabbits are not ruminants. Rabbits only very rarely chew
their own droppings anyway. Are you saying that God can't tell shit
from cud ??
>
> > Annie said: Ezekiel claims that after the city Tyre
> > is destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar it will never be
> > rebuilt ever again.
>
> The original Hebrew of Ezekiel 26:14 doesn't require
> that; it could simply mean that after Nebuchadnezzar
> was done with Tyre, it would no longer be a city; it
> wouldn't have any buildings left in it; it would be
> "built no more".
>
Yes but it was built again and has buildings in it today. The prophecy
was wrong. Accept it and move on. You'll be much happier.
Read The Bible
<bibleverse2@yahoo.com>> I asked for proof of the veracity of the Bible.
Only God Himself can give someone that, by giving him
the gift of faith: "For by grace are ye saved through
faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of
God" (Ephesians 2:8). One can ask God for it in the
name of Jesus Christ: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing
in my name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy
may be full" (John 16:24).
> Drafterman said: Lack of proof against the veracity
> of the Bible is not proof of its veracity.
Right, just as lack of proof for the veracity of the
Bible is not proof against its veracity. The Bible is
innocent until proven guilty.
> Drafterman said: ... you used the Bible. Can't even
> abide simply instructions?
Christians are commanded to use the Bible: "Preach
the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and
doctrine. For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears
from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables"
(2 Timothy 4:2-4). "If ye continue in my word, then
are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31).
It is Satan who wants people to not use the Bible
because he knows that faith comes to people as they
read the Bible: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). "Those by the way
side are they that hear, then cometh the devil, and
taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they
should believe and be saved" (Luke 8:12).
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Simpleton said on Nov 3, 5:47 pm: ... until there
> is proof for the existence of God, there is no
> reason to accept it.
There is enough proof already: "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" (Romans 1:19-20). "The heavens
declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth
his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and
night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no
speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Their line is gone out through all the earth, and
their words to the end of the world" (Psalms 19:1-4).
People don't reject the existence of God because of
lack of proof, but because of their own foolish
pride: "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" (Romans 1:21-22). "The fool hath
said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 53:1).
> Simpleton said: Arguments are not synonymous with
> proof or evidence
And yet atheists are constantly asking for evidence
beyond everything that exists, which can mean that
they want to hear some intellectual arguments, some
evidence of God based on pure logic and reasoning. Of
course, if they have already rejected the evidence of
everything that exists, and have already rejected the
written evidence of the Bible, then no other evidence
could ever persuade them, neither any intellectual
arguments nor even any miracles that they might
witness with their own eyes: "If they hear not Moses
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).
This is because their minds have been blinded by
Satan from perceiving the truth: "The god of this
world hath blinded the minds of them which believe
not" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Christians must nonetheless
keep on preaching the truth to them in the hope that
"God peradventure will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover
themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are
taken captive by him at his will" (2 Timothy
2:25-26). "To open their eyes, and to turn them from
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto
God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and
inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith
that is in me" (Acts 26:18).
> Simpleton said: ... the scale, sequence, and
> relative times of the six yom creation account has
> been proven false.
The miraculous events of the six literal days of
Genesis 1:3-2:4 have never been proven false because
they have nothing to do with the fossil record laid
down before the six days ever took place.
> Simpleton said: [Re: There's no reason to
> disbelieve the Bible's positive historical evidence]
> Which is what?
Everything the Bible says took place in the past.
None of the historical evidence of the Bible has ever
been proven false, so there's no reason to reject it.
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Annie said on Nov 3, 9:04 pm:
> Would not the Bible simply say [Judas] was really
> remorseful, rather than providing a false account
> of his death to make a point?
The Bible nowhere provides a false account of his
death. Matthew 27:4-5 simply shows that he was so
remorseful that he hanged himself; it in no way
requires that he died from that, for something could
have happened which released him from the hanging
before he had been strangled to death.
> Annie said: The fact that every reformed church has
> adopted [The Apostles'] creed means what... that
> you know better than they do?
The Apostle's creed is a misnomer; it wasn't written
by the Apostles. The only part of it that's
contradicted by the Bible is the part about Jesus
going into hell before His resurrection, for Jesus
went into heaven upon His death: "And when Jesus had
cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy
hands I commend my spirit; and having said thus, he
gave up the ghost" (Luke 23:46). He didn't go into
hell until after His resurrection: "For Christ also
hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in
the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also
he went and preached unto the spirits in prison"
(1 Peter 3:18-19); "For this cause was the gospel
preached also to them that are dead" (1 Peter 4:6);
"Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also
descended first into the lower parts of the earth?"
(Ephesians 4:9). He was preaching the fulfillment of
the gospel of His death for our sins and His rising
from the dead on the third day: "Thus it is written,
and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise
from the dead the third day, and that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name
among all nations" (Luke 24:46-47).
> Annie said: Does Jesus still hang out in hell
> preaching the gospel. If not, why not? Why were
> those people the only ones to have a second chance?
It wasn't a second chance, for the ones Jesus was
preaching to had all died in faith: "These all died
in faith, not having received the promises, but
having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of
them, and embraced them" (Hebrews 11:13). Jesus told
them that He had completed what was required for
their salvation: "Of which salvation the prophets
have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied
of the grace that should come unto you; searching
what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ
which was in them did signify, when it testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory
that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that
not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister
the things, which are now reported unto you by them
that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy
Ghost sent down from heaven, which things the angels
desire to look into" (1 Peter 1:10-12).
Jesus then took all of the believers out of Hades and
up into heaven with Him: "Wherefore he saith, When he
ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and
gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it
but that he also descended first into the lower parts
of the earth?" (Ephesians 4:8-9). So there are no
longer any believers in Hades. Now all believers go
directly into heaven to be with Jesus when they die;
"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be
absent from the body, and to be present with the
Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8); "To live is Christ, and
to die is gain ... having a desire to depart, and to
be with Christ, which is far better" (Philippians
1:21,23).
The Bible speaks of no second chance for those who
are in hell. We must repent from our sins and believe
in Jesus now, while we are still alive: "Except ye
repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3);
"If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your
sins" (John 8:24). "If any man see his brother sin a
sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he
shall give him life for them that sin not unto death.
There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall
pray for it" (1 John 5:16). "If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).
"If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we
have fellowship one with another, and the blood of
Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin"
(1 John 1:7). "Jesus Christ, who is the faithful
witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the
prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved
us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood"
(Revelation 1:5).
> Annie said: [Re: Nothing Jesus says ever requires
> that He would return within the lifetimes of the
> people He was addressing.]
> The fact that he says it plain and simple requires
> that he follows through.
Jesus never said that He would return within the
lifetimes of the individuals He was addressing, only
that He would return before all believers on the earth
perish: "And except that the Lord had shortened those
days, no flesh should be saved, but for the elect's
sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the
days" (Mark 13:20). All believers of all times are
considered as one by Jesus: "Neither pray I for these
alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word, that they all may be one"
(John 17:20-21).
> Annie said: ... there is not enough water on the
> face of the earth to cause a global flood.
There is enough water in all the ice caps and
underground and in the atmosphere to cause a global
flood.
> Annie said: God obviously sucked the excess water
> off the face of the earth too?
If God miraculously added any other volumes of water
to the flood, yes, He could have miraculously removed
them as well.
> Annie said: Grow up
"Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and
become as little children, ye shall not enter into
the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3).
> Annie said: ... grow a brain.
"We have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16).
> Annie said: ... no matter how many ancient cities
> you unearth, nothing can prove the existence of God.
Right, nothing earthly can ever prove the existence
of God to those who have already rejected the
evidence of all that exists (Romans 1:19-20, Psalms
19:1-4) and have rejected the written evidence of the
Bible (Luke 16:31). Such people will falsely reject
any further evidence as "still no proof of God"; so
when they ask for further evidence, their asking is
a sham.
> Annie said: [The Bible] has been proven false a
> gazillion times by the end of Genesis
It hasn't. The Bible has never been proven false
regarding anything that it teaches.
> Annie said: Homo sapiens did not "suddenly appear
> out of nowhere".
Homo sapiens sapiens did, about 40,000 years ago,
which is when God's miraculous creation of men in
His own mental image took place: "So God created man
in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).
> Annie said: There are a few passages that say the
> sun moves across the sky
That's what it appears to do. Scientists still today
refer to "sunset" and "sunrise", in reference to what
the sun appears to do, even though the sun doesn't
actually set and rise.
> Annie said: That's all you're full of - excuses,
> not explanations.
Perfectly valid explanations can always be seen as
excuses by those who are unwilling to accept them.
> Annie said: Like 2 Peter. Who cares who wrote it.
> The author whether it be Peter or Buzz Lightyear,
> is full of shit.
Nothing 2 Peter teaches has ever been proven wrong;
so there's no reason to reject it or its authorship
by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:1), who was an
eyewitness of Jesus Christ: "We have not followed
cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you
the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).
> Annie said: [Re: The Bible teaches no factual
> errors (2 Timothy 3:16).]
> You can't take the word of the source that the
> source is perfect.
One can, if one has been given the gift of faith
(Ephesians 2:8) so that one can recognize God's voice
when one hears it: "The sheep follow him, for they
know his voice ... My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me" (John 10:4,27); "He that is
of God heareth God's words" (John 8:47).
> Annie said: [Re: Hares eat some of their own
> droppings.] Rabbits do that, not hares.
One definition of the English word "rabbit" is "hare"
(Webster's). Nothing requires that the ancient Hebrew
word translated as "hare" in Leviticus 11:6 was as
restricted in its usage as the modern English word
"hare"; Leviticus 11:6 is referring to an animal
which eats food it has previously swallowed.
> Annie said: Droppings are not cud.
The ancient Hebrew word translated as "cud" in
Leviticus 11:6 was not as restricted in its usage as
the modern English word "cud"; it could refer to an
animal eating its own droppings.
> Annie said: Rabbits are not ruminants.
The Bible doesn't say that they are.
> Annie said: [Tyre] was built again and has
> buildings in it today. The prophecy was wrong.
The original Hebrew of Ezekiel 26:14 wasn't wrong,
for all it required was that Nebuchadnezzar destroy
all the buildings in Tyre so that anything built was
no more.
> Annie said: The prophecy was wrong. Accept it and
> move on. You'll be much happier.
To falsely reject the Bible in no way makes anyone
truly happier; all it shows is that one has been
deceived into a false happiness which will not end
well at all: "There is a way which seemeth right unto
a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death"
(Proverbs 14:12). "What shall it profit a man, if he
shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or
what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my
words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of
him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he
cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy
angels" (Mark 8:36-38). "Behold, the Lord cometh with
ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon
all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them
of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly
committed, and of all their hard speeches which
ungodly sinners have spoken against him" (Jude
1:14-15). "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking
vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be
punished with everlasting destruction"
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
True, everlasting happiness comes through faith in
Jesus Christ: "I am come that they might have life,
and that they might have it more abundantly"
(John 10:10). "Thou wilt shew me the path of life; in
thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand
there are pleasures for evermore" (Psalms 16:11).
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent
not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but
that the world through him might be saved. He that
believeth on him is not condemned, but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of
God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come
into the world, and men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil. For every one
that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to
the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he
that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds
may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God"
(John 3:16-21). "These things have I spoken unto you,
that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy
might be full" (John 15:11).
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>> > Drafterman said on Nov 3, 4:39 am:
> > I asked for proof of the veracity of the Bible.
>
> Only God Himself can give someone that, by giving him
> the gift of faith: "For by grace are ye saved through
> faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of
> God" (Ephesians 2:8). One can ask God for it in the
> name of Jesus Christ: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing
> in my name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy
> may be full" (John 16:24).
>
> > Drafterman said: Lack of proof against the veracity
> > of the Bible is not proof of its veracity.
>
> Right, just as lack of proof for the veracity of the
> Bible is not proof against its veracity. The Bible is
> innocent until proven guilty.
Actually you have it wrong. Any positive claim is indeterminate until
it has met the burden of proof. The Bible has not.
Regardless there are many instances where the Bible contradicts
independent observations of the universe.
>
> > Drafterman said: ... you used the Bible. Can't even
> > abide simply instructions?
>
> Christians are commanded to use the Bible: "Preach
> the word; be instant in season, out of season;
> reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and
> doctrine. For the time will come when they will not
> endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts
> shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
> itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears
> from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables"
> (2 Timothy 4:2-4). "If ye continue in my word, then
> are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31).
>
> It is Satan who wants people to not use the Bible
> because he knows that faith comes to people as they
> read the Bible: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
> by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). "Those by the way
> side are they that hear, then cometh the devil, and
> taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they
> should believe and be saved" (Luke 8:12).
So then, what you're saying is that you have no free will?
> days" (Mark 13:20). All believers of all times are ...
>
> read more »
Annie
<annpaterson@myway.com>> > Annie said on Nov 3, 9:04 pm:
> > Would not the Bible simply say [Judas] was really
> > remorseful, rather than providing a false account
> > of his death to make a point?
>
> The Bible nowhere provides a false account of his
> death. Matthew 27:4-5 simply shows that he was so
> remorseful that he hanged himself; it in no way
> requires that he died from that, for something could
> have happened which released him from the hanging
> before he had been strangled to death.
If the Bible were to provide a true account it would have said Judas
attempted to hang himself but (tree broke, passing giraffe bit through
the rope.. whatever). There is nothing whatsoever to suggest any kind
of "falling out of the tree" mishap. They are two conflicting
accounts. Deal with it.
>
> > Annie said: [Re: Nothing Jesus says ever requires
> > that He would return within the lifetimes of the
> > people He was addressing.]
> > The fact that he says it plain and simple requires
> > that he follows through.
>
> Jesus never said that He would return within the
> lifetimes of the individuals He was addressing, only
> that He would return before all believers on the earth
> perish:
No, he did not say that specifically. He said he would be back before
the current generation passed away.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled.(Matthew 24:34).
Did he say every believer until the end of time? No, he did not. He
said "this generation."
>
> > Annie said: ... there is not enough water on the
> > face of the earth to cause a global flood.
>
> There is enough water in all the ice caps and
> underground and in the atmosphere to cause a global
> flood.
No, there is not.
>
> > Annie said: God obviously sucked the excess water
> > off the face of the earth too?
>
> If God miraculously added any other volumes of water
> to the flood, yes, He could have miraculously removed
> them as well.
Whatever you say. The flood is so thoroughly debunked by science I am
not going to bother going any further with this.
>
>
> > Annie said: ... no matter how many ancient cities
> > you unearth, nothing can prove the existence of God.
>
> Right, nothing earthly can ever prove the existence
> of God to those who have already rejected the
> evidence of all that exists (Romans 1:19-20, Psalms
> 19:1-4) and have rejected the written evidence of the
> Bible (Luke 16:31). Such people will falsely reject
> any further evidence as "still no proof of God"; so
> when they ask for further evidence, their asking is
> a sham.
I reject the evidence of the Bible because it is wrong about small
things. If it is wrong about small things, how can we trust it to be
right about big things?
>
> > Annie said: [The Bible] has been proven false a
> > gazillion times by the end of Genesis
>
> It hasn't. The Bible has never been proven false
> regarding anything that it teaches.
It so has. There is fossil evidence, and geological evidence galore
that things did not pan out as Genesis suggests. For example, reptiles
evolved before birds, there had to be a sun before there were trees,
humans did not appear on the earth overnight but evolved from other
creatures. There is a ton of evidence to refute creation and the
flood.
>
> > Annie said: Homo sapiens did not "suddenly appear
> > out of nowhere".
>
> Homo sapiens sapiens did, about 40,000 years ago,
> which is when God's miraculous creation of men in
> His own mental image took place: "So God created man
> in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
> male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).
I think you'll find the not-so-miraculous creation of modern humans
was about 130,000 years ago.
>
> > Annie said: There are a few passages that say the
> > sun moves across the sky
>
> That's what it appears to do. Scientists still today
> refer to "sunset" and "sunrise", in reference to what
> the sun appears to do, even though the sun doesn't
> actually set and rise.
>
> > Annie said: That's all you're full of - excuses,
> > not explanations.
>
> Perfectly valid explanations can always be seen as
> excuses by those who are unwilling to accept them.
I am unwilling to accept the crap ones.
>
Saying they chew cud says they are ruminants because ruminants are the
only animals that chew cud. Cud is not droppings. Droppings are not
cud. I can't see how there could be any confusion over droppings being
cud. Does the Bible say dogs "chew cud?" Dogs eat crap more often than
rabbits do. If eating crap equates to chewing cud, then dogs must chew
cud as well.
>
> > Annie said: [Tyre] was built again and has
> > buildings in it today. The prophecy was wrong.
>
> The original Hebrew of Ezekiel 26:14 wasn't wrong,
> for all it required was that Nebuchadnezzar destroy
> all the buildings in Tyre so that anything built was
> no more.
>
No, not so "anything built was no more", but that Tyre would "be built
no more." In other words, never built again. You're twisting the
words. Here's another version. Is that clearer for you?
Ezekiel 26:14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a
place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD
have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. (NIV)
Believe in Jesus by all means, but drop the thing about the Bible
being infalliable. It isn't.
Steve in Virginia
<chandler2368@hotmail.com>Cheers,
Steve
> sins, such as ...
>
> read more »
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On Nov 5, 2:55 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (A Subsequent Poster)
>
> > Simpleton said on Nov 3, 5:47 pm: ... until there
> > is proof for the existence of God, there is no
> > reason to accept it.
>
> There is enough proof already
No, there isn't.
> : "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" (Romans 1:19-20). "The heavens
> declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth
> his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and
> night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no
> speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
> Their line is gone out through all the earth, and
> their words to the end of the world" (Psalms 19:1-4).
>
Which pales in comparison to
"The train for Hogwarts leaves from Platform 9 3/4" (JKR)
> People don't reject the existence of God because of
> lack of proof,
People do.
> but because of their own foolish
> pride: "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" (Romans 1:21-22). "The fool hath
> said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 53:1).
>
Which still pales in comparison to
"The train for Hogwarts leaves from Platform 9 3/4" (JKR)
> > Simpleton said: Arguments are not synonymous with
> > proof or evidence
>
> And yet atheists are constantly asking for evidence
> beyond everything that exists,
Yes, and instead these atheists are presented with debunked arguments.
> which can mean that
> they want to hear some intellectual arguments, some
> evidence of God based on pure logic and reasoning.
Evidence and arguments are not synonymous.
> Of
> course, if they have already rejected the evidence of
> everything that exists, and have already rejected the
> written evidence of the Bible, then no other evidence
> could ever persuade them,
The Bible's account is simply evidence that men asserted some things.
That's all.
> neither any intellectual
> arguments nor even any miracles that they might
> witness with their own eyes: "If they hear not Moses
> and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded,
> though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).
>
Which still pales in comparison to
"The train for Hogwarts leaves from Platform 9 3/4" (JKR)
> This is because their minds have been blinded by
> Satan from perceiving the truth: "The god of this
> world hath blinded the minds of them which believe
> not" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Christians must nonetheless
> keep on preaching the truth to them in the hope that
> "God peradventure will give them repentance to the
> acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover
> themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are
> taken captive by him at his will" (2 Timothy
> 2:25-26). "To open their eyes, and to turn them from
> darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto
> God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and
> inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith
> that is in me" (Acts 26:18).
>
Which still pales in comparison to
"The train for Hogwarts leaves from Platform 9 3/4" (JKR)
> > Simpleton said: ... the scale, sequence, and
> > relative times of the six yom creation account has
> > been proven false.
>
> The miraculous events of the six literal days of
> Genesis 1:3-2:4 have never been proven false
They have been proven false.
> because
> they have nothing to do with the fossil record laid
> down before the six days ever took place.
>
Which is irrelevant, since according to you it has nothing to do with
it.
> > Simpleton said: [Re: There's no reason to
> > disbelieve the Bible's positive historical evidence]
> > Which is what?
>
> Everything the Bible says took place in the past.
> None of the historical evidence of the Bible has ever
> been proven false, so there's no reason to reject it.
>
That is false. The six yom creation, among other things has been
proven false, which is more than sufficient reason to reject it.
bill steen
<enlightenedfree@gmail.com>needed are here:
1. enlightenedfree9.blogspot.com
2. enlightenedfree7.blogspot.com
We know who, when, where, & why the Bible was created. Now we have got
to figure out what to do with that knowledge.
Bill
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On Nov 5, 12:17 pm, "bill steen" <enlightenedf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This all sounds like a request for a second enlightenment.
It is not. It is a request for extra jalapenos on my nachos.
> The books
> needed are here:
>
> 1. enlightenedfree9.blogspot.com
> 2. enlightenedfree7.blogspot.com
>
> We know who, when, where, & why the Bible was created. Now we have got
> to figure out what to do with that knowledge.
>
Not until the claims made by the authors of the bible have been backed
up with some compelling evidence.
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>> On Nov 5, 12:17 pm, "bill steen" <enlightenedf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This all sounds like a request for a second enlightenment.
>
> It is not. It is a request for extra jalapenos on my nachos.
Those extra jalapenos may grant you a "second enlightenment" of how
hot they were.
Read The Bible
<bibleverse2@yahoo.com>> Any positive claim is indeterminate until it has
> met the burden of proof.
There is no burden of proof for a claim of innocence.
> Drafterman said: ... there are many instances where
> the Bible contradicts independent observations of
> the universe.
There isn't one.
> Drafterman said: ... you have no free will?
We have free will (Joshua 24:15).
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Annie said on Nov 5, 6:16 am:
> If the Bible were to provide a true account it
> would have said Judas attempted to hang himself
Judas did hang himself (Matthew 27:5), but the point
of Matthew 27:3-5 is to show the extent of Judas'
remorse, not how he actually ended up dying (Acts
1:18).
> Annie said: There is nothing whatsoever to suggest
> any kind of "falling out of the tree" mishap
There is no necessary connection between his falling
headlong to his death (Acts 1:18) and his prior
hanging of himself (Matthew 27:5).
> Annie said: They are two conflicting accounts.
There's no contradiction.
> Annie said: He said he would be back before the
> current generation passed away ... Matthew 24:34
Not necessarily the temporal generation of His time;
Matthew 24:34 could refer to the figurative
generation of the righteous elect of all times
(Psalms 14:5, 22:30; 1 Peter 2:9), which will not
pass away before He comes (Matthew 24:22). At the
same time, Matthew 24:34 could also refer to the
temporal generation that would see the rebudding of
the fig tree (Matthew 24:32-34), which could
symbolize the nation of Israel (Hosea 9:10) being
re-established by UN resolution in 1947. If a
temporal generation usually passes away after 70
years (Psalms 90:10), Matthew 24:32-34 could then
mean that the tribulation and second coming could be
fulfilled by 2016.
A passage in Daniel could say the same thing, for
the 70 "weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 could refer in
their endtime fulfillment to seventy years; the
Hebrew word translated as "weeks" is from a Hebrew
word which means "to be completed"; Daniel 9:25
could mean that 69 years will be completed from the
1947 UN resolution to restore Israel until the
second coming of Christ. Daniel 9:26 could refer
to a false Messiah ruling Jerusalem 62 years after
the 1947 UN resolution, with whom the Antichrist
will make a treaty (Daniel 11:22-23), for the Hebrew
word translated as "cut off" can refer to the making
of a treaty. This treaty will be for seven years,
but the Antichrist will break it in the middle of
the seven years (Daniel 9:27). Christ will return
at the end of the seven years and complete all of
the requirements of Daniel 9:24 in Jerusalem before
the 70 years is up.
> Annie said: The flood is so thoroughly debunked by
> science
Science has never disproven Noah's flood.
> Annie said: I reject the evidence of the Bible
> because it is wrong about small things.
It's wrong about nothing (2 Timothy 3:16).
> Annie said: ... reptiles evolved before birds
Right; the Bible doesn't contradict that because
the six days of Genesis 1:3-2:4 aren't about the
fossil record, but about God's miraculous restoration
of life to the earth after a cataclysm had rendered
all evolved life extinct (Genesis 1:2), possibly
some 40,000 years ago.
> Annie said: ... there had to be a sun before there
> were trees
Right, but the trees in the fossil record older than
40,000 years ago didn't have to have had the same sun
that we have today. The cataclysm, such as a comet
strike, could have knocked the earth out of its
proper orbit around another sun and sent the earth
wandering into interstellar space. The trees which
God miraculously restored to the earth (Genesis
1:11-13) after the cataclysm did have a temporary
light source (Genesis 1:3-5) which could have
supported photosynthesis; even if it didn't, the
trees could have easily survived for one day until a
new sun was created for the restored earth (Genesis
1:16-19).
> Annie said: ... humans did not appear on the earth
> overnight but evolved from other creatures
Right, except for homo sapiens sapiens, which
contained a miraculous insertion of some new genes
for higher brain development.
> Annie said: There is a ton of evidence to refute
> creation and the flood.
There isn't any.
> Annie said: ... the not-so-miraculous creation of
> modern humans was about 130,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens sapiens didn't appear until about 40,000
years ago, and it appeared quite suddenly.
> Annie said: Cud is not droppings.
The ancient Hebrew word translated as "cud" wasn't as
restricted in its usage as our modern English word
"cud".
> Annie said: Tyre would "be built no more."
The original Hebrew of Ezekiel 26:14 doesn't require
that Tyre would never be rebuilt.
> Annie said: ... drop the thing about the Bible
> being infalliable. It isn't.
It is (Matthew 4:4).
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Simpleton said on Nov 5, 12:02 pm:
> The Bible's account is simply evidence that men
> asserted some things.
Under the inspiration of God (2 Peter 1:21;
2 Timothy 3:16). And the Bible contains eyewitness
historical accounts (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4, Luke
1:2, Hebrews 2:3) which have never been proven
inaccurate in any way. So there's no reason to reject
the Bible.
> Simpleton said: The six yom creation, among other
> things has been proven false
Neither it nor any of the other things taught by the
Bible has ever been proven false.
*******
(A Subsequent Post)
> Simpleton said on Nov 5, 12:21 pm:
> Not until the claims made by the authors of the
> bible have been backed up with some compelling
> evidence.
The Bible record is compelling evidence in itself
(Romans 10:17) to those to whom God has granted His
gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8). If someone doesn't
believe the compelling evidence of the Bible itself,
he wouldn't believe it because of any other
compelling evidence (Luke 16:31). Those who reject
the Bible are under the control of Satan, whether
they realize it or not (2 Timothy 2:26). He blinds
the minds of unbelievers (2 Corinthians 4:4), takes
the Bible out of their hearts (Luke 8:12), to prevent
them from coming to faith and being saved.
Unbelievers have also hardened their own hearts
against any work that God wants to do in them
(Hebrews 3:15), because they want to continue in sin
(John 3:19-20).
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>> > Drafterman said on Nov 5, 6:15 am:
> > Any positive claim is indeterminate until it has
> > met the burden of proof.
>
> There is no burden of proof for a claim of innocence.
There is a burden of proof for a positive claim (the Bible is true.
God exists, etc).
>
> > Drafterman said: ... there are many instances where
> > the Bible contradicts independent observations of
> > the universe.
>
> There isn't one.
There isn't *just* one, yes. There are plenty.
>
> > Drafterman said: ... you have no free will?
>
> We have free will (Joshua 24:15).
What's the point of giving us free will if commands and edicts are to
follow?
Sepulchrave
<archezor@gmail.com>addition to the excellent ones you posted.
"Each nation has created a god, and the god has always resembled his
creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved, and he was
invariably found on the side of those in power. Each god was intensely
patriotic, and detested all nations but his own."
"No god was ever in advance of the age that created him."
I find it interesting to note that the Bible increases in
philosophical content towards the end of the New Testament, when many
people in the world were already beginning to have time to think about
things. God, who is supposedly unchangeable, becomes more forgiving
and approachable in the New Testament, commits less atrocities, and
seeks to explain himself more. There was no need to explain the
invented deity in the primitive times, because (a) there was less
competition, and (b) less was known about the universe in general.
Also, the acts of God in the OT are plentiful and spectacular, such as
voices out of burning bushes, pillars of fire, cities falling over on
cue, etc. but in the NT, suddenly Jesus is performing coy little magic
tricks, and in the present day, one can get God to show neither his
face nor his miracles, and he responds to neither direct supplication
nor direct blasphemy. The Christian answer? "God works in mysterious
ways." "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." and so forth.
As for the posts of ReadTheBible, all I can say is your reasoning is
completely circular...when you use reasoning at all. Most (if not all)
of your arguments to support the Bible come from the Bible itself. If
a person is tried for murder, the jury does not simply accept that
persons word of honour that they didn't do it. There must be evidence,
an alibi, witnesses, accusers, or (preferably) a combination of more
than one of those external elements to determine the truth. In short,
everytime you use a Bible verse to "prove" the truth of the Bible, you
are wasting your words, since it's the equivalent of me saying "I'm
right because I say so."
On Oct 26, 1:36 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The people were taught that the record (Bible) was inspired, and
> therefore true. They were not taught that it was true, and therefore
> inspired. After all, the real question is not whether the Bible is
> inspired, but whether it is true. If the Bible is really true, the
> claim of inspiration need not be urged, and if it is not true, its
> inspiration can hardly be established. As a matter of fact, the truth
> does not need to be inspired. Where truth ends, where probability
> stops, inspiration begins. A fact never went into partnership with a
> miracle. Truth does not need the assistance of a miracle. A fact will
> fit every other fact in the universe because it is the product of all
> the other facts. A lie will fit nothing except another lie made for
> the express purpose of fitting it."
>
> "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she
> will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within
> its lies there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is
> regarded as the property of man. She is mad to ask forgiveness for
> becoming a mother. She is as much below her husband as her husband is
> below Christ. She is not allowed to speak (in the churches). The
> gospel is too pure to be spoken by her polluted lips. Women should
> learn in silence."
>
> "Man must learn to rely upon himself. Reading Bibles will not protect
> him from the blasts of winter, but houses, fires and clothing will. To
> prevent famine, one plow is worth a million sermons."
>
> "If Christ, in fact, said, 'I came not to bring peace but a sword', it
> is the only prophecy in the New Testament that has been literally
> fulfilled
>
> http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/ingersolls_views.php
>
> Observer
>
> Lets all learn to learn
>
> Regards
>
> Psychonomist
Read The Bible
<bibleverse2@yahoo.com>> There is a burden of proof for a positive claim
> (the Bible is true. God exists, etc).
The claim that the Bible is true (2 Timothy 3:16)
meets the burden of proof for those to whom God has
granted His gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8, Romans
10:17), for they can recognize God's voice in the
Bible (John 10:4,27, 8:47). The burden of proof
required by unbelievers in order to believe the Bible
is infinite, for no proof could ever make them
believe the Bible (Luke 16:31).
The claim that God exists (Exodus 3:14) meets the
burden of proof of all people in that God has been
made known to everyone by everything that exists
(Romans 1:19-20, Psalms 19:1-4). It is only by
willful rejection of God through foolish intellectual
pride that people claim God does not exist (Romans
1:21-22, Psalms 53:1).
> Drafterman said: What's the point of giving us free
> will if commands and edicts are to follow?
We give our children instructions to keep them safe.
We tell them not to run into the street for their own
good, not to take away their free will. It's the same
with God. He wants children, not robots, so He gives
us free will. But He wants us to stay safe, not only
physically, but also spiritually, so He gives us
instructions of what to avoid doing.
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
> Sepulchrave quoted on Nov 7, 6:53 am:
> "Each nation has created a god ...
The nation of Israel did not create God; God created
every nation (Acts 17:26).
> Sepulchrave quoted: ... the god has always
> resembled his creators.
God created man (Psalms 100:3) in His image (Genesis
1:27).
> Sepulchrave quoted: He hated and loved what they
> hated and loved
God hates the sinfulness men love (Luke 16:15; 1 John
2:16), and loves the good that men hate (2 Timothy
3:3).
> Sepulchrave quoted: ... he was invariably found on
> the side of those in power.
God is more often on the side on those not in power
(1 Corinthians 1:26-28).
> Sepulchrave quoted: Each god was intensely
> patriotic, and detested all nations but his own."
God loves all nations (Isaiah 19:25, John 3:16).
> Sepulchrave quoted: "No god was ever in advance of
> the age that created him."
No age ever created God, for He is from everlasting
(Psalms 90:2). God's Old Covenant law given to Moses
was far in advance of any other law in 1500 BC, just
as God's New Covenant law given through Jesus was
far in advance of any other law in the first century
AD, and is still far in advance of any human law
existing today (Matthew 5:39, 26:52, John 13:34).
> Sepulchrave said: ... the Bible increases in
> philosophical content towards the end of the New
> Testament
The Bible doesn't teach philosophy, but warns against
it (Colossians 2:8); the Bible teaches theology
(Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3).
> Sepulchrave said: God, who is supposedly
> unchangeable ...
He doesn't change (Hebrews 13:8).
> Sepulchrave said: ... becomes more forgiving and
> approachable in the New Testament
That was a change in Covenant, not a change in God;
He had foretold that He would change the Covenant
(Jeremiah 31:31-34).
> Sepulchrave said: ... commits less atrocities
God has never committed any atrocity.
> Sepulchrave said: Jesus is performing coy little
> magic tricks
Jesus performed miracles, such as healing multitudes
of people (Matthew 12:15) and casting out demons, by
the Holy Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28).
> Sepulchrave said: ... in the present day, one can
> get God to show neither his face nor his miracles
In the present day, God continues to both show His
face (2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:6) and perform miracles
(1 Corinthians 12:8-11).
> Sepulchrave said: ... he responds to neither direct
> supplication nor direct blasphemy.
He responds to both direct supplication (1 John 3:22)
and direct blasphemy (Romans 1:18-31).
> Sepulchrave said: If a person is tried for murder,
> the jury does not simply accept that persons word
> of honour that they didn't do it.
By law they have to consider a defendant innocent
until proven guilty. The Bible has never been proven
guilty of any falsehood, so there's no reason to
reject anything that it teaches.
> Sepulchrave said: ... witnesses
The Bible contains eyewitness accounts (2 Peter 1:16;
1 John 1:1-4, Luke 1:2, Hebrews 2:3) which have never
been proven as false.
> Sepulchrave said: ... accusers
Unbelievers accuse the Bible of falsehood without
having any proof against it whatsoever. The Bible is
innocent until proven guilty.
> Sepulchrave said: ... everytime you use a Bible
> verse to "prove" the truth of the Bible, you are
> wasting your words
Only on those who are of the devil (John 8:43-47),
for faith in the Bible comes as people who are of God
read it (Romans 10:17) and God grants them His gift
of faith (Ephesians 2:8).
> Sepulchrave said: ... it's the equivalent of me
> saying "I'm right because I say so."
That's what all those who reject God and the Bible
are saying, for they have no proof at all against God
or the Bible. They reject them so they can keep on
in their favorite sins without having to feel guilty
for them (John 3:19-20). They think they're free
when in reality they're the slaves of their own vile
lusts (2 Peter 2:18-22, James 1:13-15). Jesus came
to set us free from slavery to sin and Satan (John
8:34-36; 1 John 3:5-10, Acts 26:18; 2 Timothy 2:26).
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Leelee82
<Leelee82@gmail.com>On Nov 7, 6:02 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Annie said: ... there had to be a sun before there
> > were trees
>
> Right, but the trees in the fossil record older than
> 40,000 years ago didn't have to have had the same sun
> that we have today. The cataclysm, such as a comet
> strike, could have knocked the earth out of its
> proper orbit around another sun and sent the earth
> wandering into interstellar space. The trees which
> God miraculously restored to the earth (Genesis
> 1:11-13) after the cataclysm did have a temporary
> light source (Genesis 1:3-5) which could have
> supported photosynthesis; even if it didn't, the
> trees could have easily survived for one day until a
> new sun was created for the restored earth (Genesis
> 1:16-19).
>
> > Annie said: ... humans did not appear on the earth
> > overnight but evolved from other creatures
>
> Right, except for homo sapiens sapiens, which
> contained a miraculous insertion of some new genes
> for higher brain development.
>
> > Annie said: There is a ton of evidence to refute
> > creation and the flood.
>
> There isn't any.
>
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hardgrounds.htm, for more information.
> The original Hebrew of Ezekiel 26:14 doesn't require
> that Tyre would never be rebuilt.
>
source that gives the original Hebrew and explains what it means.
Dave
<dvorous@gmail.com>> > Drafterman said on Nov 7, 6:01 am:
> > There is a burden of proof for a positive claim
> > (the Bible is true. God exists, etc).
>
> The claim that the Bible is true (2 Timothy 3:16)
> meets the burden of proof for those to whom God has
True, those that have a deep psychosis along with other mental
problems actually believe the bible is true. That's part of the
psychosis; the inability to differentiate fantasy from reality. Of
course the rest of us know that the bible has not met any kind of
burden of proof.
Eris
<vithant@gmail.com>On Nov 3, 6:43 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Drafterman said on Nov 1, 5:48 am: Offer support
> > for the veracity of the Bible and the Christian
> > notion of God without using the Bible.
>
> There's no proof against the veracity of the Bible or
> the existence of God, so there's no reason to reject
> them. If someone doesn't believe the Bible just by
> reading it (Romans 10:17), he wouldn't believe the
> Bible because of any support for the Bible outside of
> the Bible (Luke 16:31). If someone doesn't believe in
> the existence of God just by seeing everything that
> exists (Romans 1:19-20, Psalms 19:1-4), he wouldn't
> believe in the existence of God through any
> intellectual argument (Romans 1:21-22, Psalms 53:1).
>
the Census (6 CE) that seems to question the veracity of the Bible.
Someone asked me when I look at the universe, HOW CAN I NOT BELIEVE IN
A GOD!!!
Quick trip through a Juvenile Oncology ward does it for me.
If you want to know the power of prayer visit an insane asylum.
Misquoted Nietzsche
9/11 is a faith based initiative
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Oct 31, 4:01 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Observersaid on Oct 30, 3:19 am:
>
> Not the whole Bible, just the politically incorrect
> parts:
You are a liar .Not once ever have I called for outlawing any part of
your filthy superstitious compendium of primitive myths.
< sniped biblical trash>
>
> >Observersaid: ... the buy bull
> One doesn't have to buy the Bible; it's free: "He
> that hath no money, come ye ..
Damn you are on stupid ass hole.
Buy bull indicates that the bible is bullshit . Accordingly if you
buy into It you are buying bullshit.
. Seek ye the LORD
Observer
Piss on your mythological Lord.
> <sniped more biblical bull shit>
> >Observersaid: ... the buy bull
> The Bible isn't bull; it's the Word of God: "All
> scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
> profitable for doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Observer
scientifically verifiable substantiation there of.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
You are backing a god fraud.
There is no need for a god . Science has accounted for the the
existence of the universe and all there in without resorting to a god
or the implied magic thereof.
>
> >Observersaid: But rather is should be shown up to
> > is.
>
> The Bible isn't filthy:
The only indicator you have is the bible says the bible is true.
Ha Ha Ha Ha ha
How utterly circular and devoid of power is such an argument?
"The words of the LORD are
> pure words,
Prove to us that these are the words of a god..
>
> T<sniped more superstitious nonsense from the buy bull>
>
> >Observersaid: ... lets see you provide
>
> Jesus confirmed that souls exist: "Thou fool, this
It is moronic to believe that Jesus ever lived much less was 1/3 of a
god thing.
As I Said before the bible is simply primitive superstitious trash.
Look I challenge you to prove that such a thing as a soul exists .
Quotes from your idiotic mythology do not constitute proof.
Give us scientifically verifiable substantiation of a soul .
< sniped more biblical trash>
> >Observersaid: The good works of the chrisitans
> > children being tortured to death to save their
> > souls in the name of your Christ. Add to that
> > 700,000 slaughtered in Croatia by the chrisitans
> > and hundreds of thousands just recently in Rwanda
>
> Jesus never said to torture or kill anyone; He said
> the opposite:
First of all you have no idea what jesus would have said if he
existed.
Secondly the above murderous function o0f your filthy superstition is
a matter of historical record.
The Bible is just a primitive set of myths.
<Sniped usual biblical trash>
> Atheists such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, were
> responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of
> people under their rule.
Observer
they killed in the name of atheism or to convert others to a position
of non belief.
These people were power mad homicidal maniacs who simply lacked any
compelling reason to believe in your brand of superstitious filth.
You can not excuse christians for the atrocities they committed on the
grounds that there were non believers who were homicidal.
Presently in this world there are one billion one hundred million
nonbelievers on the planet .
>
> >Observersaid: The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994
> > Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathizers in Rwanda
> > and was the largest atrocity during the Rwandan
> > Civil War
>
> It wasn't a religious war; Christianity had no more
> to do with those killings than the color of the skin
> of those who did the killings.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021012152454/www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html
>
> >Observersaid: Fuck your Christian love.
>
> Is that atheist love?
>
> >Observersaid: Every one dies and all death is
> > has become undead.
>
> Everyone will be resurrected just as Jesus was
> resurrected: "For as in Adam all die, even so in
> Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his
> own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward they
> that are Christ's at his coming" (1 Corinthians
> 15:22-23). "Marvel not at this, for the hour is
> coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
> hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
> done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
> that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
> damnation" (John 5:28-29).
>
>
> The Gospels of the Bible are the historical record of
> Jesus' life.
I submit that your bible is just the vile superstitious myths of
previous millenia run through the bowels of its authors
.
It proves nothing and , when taken as a whole , has no redeeming
values. I further submit that anything of value found there in is
simply adventitious.
There's no proof against them.
Observer
They are proof against them selves. In generality the texts fly in the
face of science , reason , and common sense.
>
> >Observersaid: ... and then go on to prove that is
>
> Jesus said He was the Son of God: "I am the Son of
> God" (John 10:36).
prove it's self.
Why is it that christians are so lacking in education ?
Here is how one proves something;
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena,
acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous
knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and
measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the
collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the
formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another,
identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other
methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses
as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test
these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict
dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains
of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure.
This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of
hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the
conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased
interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to
document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is
available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing
other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to
reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows
statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be
established.
"Duh bible say so" isn't proof of anything but the bible says so.
>
> >Observersaid: If there exists a god It damned sure
> > monster as that described in the buy bull.
>
> Nothing in the Bible shows God as inept,
> sadomasochistic, or a monster.
Observer
The bible tells of a god that is so inept and masochistic that he had
himself tortured to death in order to save us from his own wrath .A
sadistic monster that keeps a place wherein to torment his creatures
for eternity. And those are just the high lights of the new
testament.
Need we go into th horrors of the old testament?
>
> >Observersaid: ... it is hateful ,degrading ,
>
> The Bible isn't hateful, degrading, dehumanizing,
> or trash
.
Observer
full of iniquity , is that not degrading. Does it not prompt us to
cherish this monster god above mankind. does it not specifically
denigrate women with it's misogynistic teachings.
And how about this
Burn Nonbelievers
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving
you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow
citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such
cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true
and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you
must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as
well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the
middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as
a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin
forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has
been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his
fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you
and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your
ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him
and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is
pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
>
> >Observersaid: Reading history taught me of the
>
> The Bible itself has never done anyone any harm, nor
> has it ever taught any Christians to do anyone any
> harm. Reading history should have taught one of the
> damage atheists have done.
superstition?
I am an apatheist which means someone who considers the question of
the existence of God as neither meaningful nor relevant to human
affairs.
My disgust is purely at the Abramamic superstitions .
Observer
Read the history of this viscous death cult and be educated as to its
atrocities. Read all of the info at the web site I supplied.
I can provide you with thousands of hours of reading on the subject.
Regards
Psychonomist
>
> *******
> (A Subsequent Poster)
>
Eris
<vithant@gmail.com>amazing the amount of gibberish the religious salesmen have foisted on
the ignorant , gullible and easily led.
Think before posting this kind of nonsense. Everything worth while in
the bible is common sense available long before the bible was
compiled.
Common sense speaks for itself, it doesn't not require some guy in a
clown suit to explain it to us.
That which exists, exist naturally, that which is unnatural does not
exist.
On Oct 27, 5:04 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Observer quoted on Oct 25, 11:36 pm:
> > "... To prevent famine, one plow is worth a
> > million sermons."
>
> There is more than one kind of famine. In the future,
> when the Bible becomes outlawed around the world as
> "hate speech", a famine of God's Word will spread
> over the globe: "Behold, the days come, saith the
> Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not
> a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of
> hearing the words of the LORD. And they shall wander
> from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,
> they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the
> LORD, and shall not find it" (Amos 8:11-12).
>
> Man needs more than food for his body; he needs food
> for his soul: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but
> by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
> God" (Matthew 4:4). "What shall it profit a man, if
> he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
> words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of
> him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he
> cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy
>
> The Bible is a most valuable resource: "All scripture
> instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may
> be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"
> (2 Timothy 3:16-17). "Wherefore lay apart all
> filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and
> receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is
> able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word,
> and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves"
> (James 1:21-22).
>
> Just having enough regular food to eat won't keep
> anyone alive forever; but the spiritual food of the
> Bible can cause us to be spiritually born again into
> eternal life: "Being born again, not of corruptible
> seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which
> liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as
> grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of
> grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof
> falleth away, but the word of the Lord endureth for
> ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is
> preached unto you" (1 Peter 1:23-25).
>
> > Observer quoted: "If Christ, in fact, said, 'I came
> > prophecy in the New Testament that has been
>
> What Christ said was not literal, but figurative of
> the division that would come into those families
> where some would become Christians and some wouldn't;
> "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I
> tell you, Nay, but rather division. For from
> henceforth there shall be five in one house divided,
> three against two, and two against three. The father
> shall be divided against the son, and the son against
> the father; the mother against the daughter, and the
> daughter against the mother; the mother in law
> against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law
> against her mother in law" (Luke 12:51-53).
>
> Christ specifically taught against violence: "Resist
> not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
> sword into his place, for all they that take the
Eris
<vithant@gmail.com>On Nov 1, 7:50 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > konrad said on Oct 31, 4:37 am: Matthew 24:34
>
> That doesn't have to refer to the temporal generation
> in the time of Jesus, but could refer to the temporal
> generation that sees the rebudding of the fig tree
> in Matthew 24:32-33. The fig tree could represent the
> nation of Israel (Hosea 9:10), and its rebudding
> could represent the re-establishment of the nation of
> Israel in 1947. If a temporal generation usually
> passes away after 70 years (Psalms 90:10), then
> Matthew 24:34 could be saying that the apocalypse and
> the second coming of Jesus Christ will be fulfilled
> before 2017.
>
Any particular reason that the Bible is not plain spoken, other than
making the scoundrels of the world wealthy?