Do you think the Bible could be the word of G-d? /for atheists & agnostics

[Robert.Evans]

Agnostics with a bent toward a God, - do not have to believe YOUR Bible's God, - is actually God. Not believing YOUR YHVH is GOD obviously does not turn all the religious people in the world, - believing in other Gods, - into Atheists! That is just ridiculous on your part.

Are you now trying to say you beleive in a God?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Again you misunderstand and misquote and say things you have been told repeatedly are FALSE!

Agnostics with a bent toward a God, - do not have to believe YOUR Bible's God, - is actually God. Not believing YOUR YHVH is GOD obviously does not turn all the religious people in the world, - believing in other Gods, - into Atheists! That is just ridiculous on your part.

I said only YOUR YHVH is not an actually God because of the skitzo crap attributed to him in your Bible.

The first religions are not Abrahamic, - you folks just like to claim fairy stories like Adam and Chavvah to falsely claim such.

You have already been given many flaws! Have you even read your Bible.

Your supposedly perfect being goes skitzo and murders innocent babies for the crimes of others.

Your supposedly perfect being - hands down laws that allow men to be horrific towards others - hold slaves forever (real slavery) - own women, rape women in wars, hold multiple sex slaves=concubines, etc.

This being called YHVH in the Bible is obviously not perfect, and not God.

*

The God of the aeons is many faceted and not static as you think. In some ways, he is not perfect. I never said he was. Yhvh is reflective and is all gods, powers, authorities and realms.

 

[Robert.Evans]

YOU are the one throwing in "spiritually discerned" because you can't counter the crap your Bible says your God, and supposedly chosen people, did!

I on the other hand am talking about what the Bible says YHVH did - and the laws supposedly given by YHVH to the Hebrew people.

*

I have no problem with what the bible says and I am willing to speak about any of it, even the over exaggerated misunderstood parts you speak of. Go ahead.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Again BULL! You keep saying people just do these things, - when I am talking about actual HEBREW LAWS, supposedly from YHVH, that allow for rape, murder, and REAL slavery (only Hebrew indentured servants could go free after a time.)

"Times were different then" - is ridiculous!

There is no difference to the raped women - then or now! No difference to the murdered - then or now. No difference to the enslaved people - then or now!

Wrong is wrong - and your Bible's YHVH doesn't seem to know what wrong/evil is, - as supposedly he put in laws to allow it.

*

This is too vague. You can't throw about such accusations without backing them up. Calm down a bit, come of the ceiling, and pick one verse of paragraph.

 

[Robert.Evans]

YOU are the one throwing in "spiritually discerned"

Because it is.

because you can't counter the crap your Bible says your God, and supposedly chosen people, did!

I on the other hand am talking about what the Bible says

accept for the spiritually discerned part I guess.

YHVH did - and the laws supposedly given by YHVH to the Hebrew people.

*

The NT tells you plainly that those who do not believe are "deluded" and that the text is "spiritually discerned". If you can't accept that, you will learn nothing.
Now pick one part and not many and I will answer. Don't think that throwing many things at me will stop me answering; it won't. But if you wish to discuss and not just throw every pot and pan out of the kitchen at me, calm down and find one part that you wish to discuss.
I await your answer to the main post.

You must know though, that we are God, we are the God of flesh. We reflect him in a physical way. How do you think he communicated with them in the OT, for example on Mt Sinai? We make God, he makes us. Do you now what that means? Do you know who you are?

 

[bravoandi]

Do you think that the Bible, *could be the word of G-d? Or divine? This question is for atheists and agnostics, but specification is needed for what type of agnosticism or atheism you are claiming.

*Or some, /any parts of the Bible

No. The four gospel writers wrote their gospels between about the years 65 and 110. They could have had no idea that what they were writing would become part of Holy Scripture, because the Bible was not compiled until the year 397. Also, many things that we read in today's New Testament are not in the earliest copies of the gospels dating from the 4th century. For example, early copies do not have the story of Jesus walking around on earth after his resurrection. Also, the final verses of Luke were added later and are not in the early copies. In my opinion, Mark, who wrote the first gospel, was merely transcribing popular folklore handed down for many years and portraying Jesus as the messiah. Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark's gospel. There are 661 verses in Mark, and all but 24 are used in Matthew and Luke. That's why the first three gospels are called the synoptic gospels, meaning appearing the same, and it is still unknown why the compilers of the New Testament included four nearly identical gospels. John's gospel, written around the year 110, does not copy the earlier gospels. His chronology of events is often different. For example, he wrote that Jesus's confrontation with the money changers in the temple occurred right after the Cana wedding feast, not during the Passover years later.
There are too many contradictions in the four gospels to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is supposed to be without error.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, assuming you mean the OT Pentateuch – why not the law of the NT I wonder? Not that it is imperative. I live by the spirit of the law now, not the letter. That is what you are trying to force me to do.

Because that is where YOUR God comes from, - and supposedly the laws are straight from that God!

You are talking about a different God. Sorry, won't wash. Don’t recognise the word religion. I follow the spirit or “law of Christ”.

BULL! I'm talking about the God of the Bible. I find it funny you have to fudge around to feel comfortable with the Bible, and your chosen religion.

If you have, it has not been recently. I have told you what the law meant. You ignore it. You show what people did when they broke the law and the law was added to as a concession.

Servants, yes“

breed them”? You make it sound like they are cattle.[

ABSOLUTE BULL on your part. No breaking the law! I showed you the actual laws saying they could hold and breed slaves - FOREVER. The babies belong to the slave owner.

The initial law was Exodus. Law was added. God spoke ten words of law only at Sinai. Nevertheless, I will answer about another God and another law that has nothing to do with me, (certainly not in the flesh, but perhaps in the spirit does.)

Why, I wonder, don't you attack the Jews of their book. Why me?

I suggest you read up on the 613 Commandments. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments.htm

That is funny! What is your different God's name, and where did he come from, and why if you don't follow the YHVH Laws do you fight for them, and use them in argument, on this forum? Homosexuality, etc.

First of all it says:


"If your brother he is becoming poorer with you, and he sells himself to you; you shall not make him work as a servant. As a hired one, and as a temporary-resident, shall he Exist with you; he shall serve with you to the year of jubilee: then he goes out from you, he and his sons with him, and he returns to his own family, to the possession of his fathers shall he return.

For they are my servants, they whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not sell themselves as a work servant. You shall not rule in him with rigor, but you shall revere your mighty-ones"


So there is a clear difference between a brother and a stranger. In other words, family comes first. This is not a strange concept for anyone.


Your servant, and your maidservant, whom they are Existing to you, from the races that are round about you, of them shall you buy(create) servants and maidservants. Moreover of the sons of the temporary-residents the ones sojourning among you, of them shall you buy, and of their families that are with you, whom they have begotten in your land: and they Exist your possession. And you allot them as an inheritance for your sons after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you make serve into distant time: but over your brothers the sons of Yisrael you shall not rule, a man over the brother of him, with rigor.


So yes, a poor servant (who has been bought from his father who cannot sustain himself and therefore has sold his son or daughter in hard times), can be passed on into distant time, therefore helping the one who owns and the one who would have starved to death. You must remember the times they lived in. There was no income support. What would you do?

But then, we see the boot can also be on the other foot. Read on:


And if a sojourner or temporary-resident with you, is affording in her hand, but your brother he is poorer compared with him, and he sells to the sojourner or temporary-resident with you, or to the members of the sojourners family: after he sold himself, he shall Exist redeemable to him: one of his brothers he shall redeem him! or his uncle, or his uncle's son, he shall redeem him, or any that is kin of the flesh of him of his family, he shall redeem him! or if she the hand of himself affords, then he redeems himself!


So effectively, the master can be sold to the slave. The Israelite would make money from being sold, the sojourner gains work from him, and both live. The only difference is the Israelite can be redeemed, which seems fair considering it is their own land. It also seems incredibly fair that they even allow them as sojourners to take Israelites as servants.

Why do you continue this BULL, when you have been shown the Laws stating the difference between Hebrew indentured servants (which could be let go) - and real SLAVES bought from all other races, owned, and bred forever?

I see no problem in saying someone cannot eat food that has been made holy.

You missed the point entirely! This text shows the different words for indentured Hebrew servant - and REAL OWNED SLAVES.

Where are you getting rape from?

We are talking about a battle where the men are dead or fled. The women would die by themselves. Is that what you are suggesting they do, or do they kill them in the name of equality? A man likes a woman and the woman likes the man. Therefore, he takes her with him. What is so bad? Yes, it could be abused, but that it is not the point of it. It is a way of dealing with the after effects of war.

From the texts I have shown YOU over and over! Rape in war - sex slaves - concubines are bought sex slaves, etc. Plus I showed you the ancient text interpreting this LAWS as meaning men - including priests - can RAPE in war.

I get a kick out of you attempted RED HERRINGS, - RAPE in battle has nothing to do with killing the women instead.

And that "A man likes a woman and the woman likes the man." is absolutely hilarious!

It is war - they have just killed your whole family - and supposedly according to you they have googly-eyes for the murderers, and want to be taken away to sexual slavery and screwed by the enemy!

Yeah right! Think about what you say! Would you be making eyes at the person whom just MURDERED your family? Would you be happy bending over for them? Obviously not! Such ideas are horrific!

What does that have to do with the Bible? That is comments after, opinion. If people wish to agree with them, as you do, then fine. It matters little to me.

Obviously extra ancient text proving they meant RAPE in battle and nothing less.

You shall not deliver to his sovereigns(adons) a servant, he who is being escaped to you from his sovereigns: rather he shall dwell with you in the midst of you, in the place which he shall choose within one of your gates, where it best-pleases him: you shall not oppress him.

It says in one of your gates, so obviously from another tribe.

I see nothing in that verse that states it is just Israelites. But family always comes first so it is obvious that they would look after their own first and foremost, and rightly so.

The command, "love your fellow man" was interpreted largely as a fellow Hebrew and not anyone. That is what the Mashiyach pointed out in the NT. It should have been everyone.

CONTINUED...

Absolute BULL! You have already been shown that this text refers only to Hebrew indentured servants, and not REAL SLAVES!

PS. Jerusalem alone had multiple gates.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

........................CONTINUED
I would like to know from you what you would do, considering their times. What would you do if someone knocked on your door and said I have no food for me and my family. What would you do? If you had no money, would you let him work for nothing perhaps and cloth and feed him? Or would you turn him and his family away to starve? Would you give some money to his father that now had lost a son or daughter as compensation to help him as a brother or would you let him struggle on? What would you do? There was no income support recall. What would you do in battle with those that were left? What would the wives ask of their husbands when returning? perhaps they would ask, And what about the women? Did you leave them there to die of starvation? Perhaps the men would say, No, in the interest of equality, and being forward looking, we ran them through with the sword!

What would you do?

What infrastructure existed then that allowed them to do anything other than that. Other races held slaves with no laws. Servants with Israel had rights. They could be freed if they were mistreated.

Perhaps you think God could do better than that. What then exactly? He is dealing with people of their time that have freewill. What would you do?

This is PURE RED HERRING! What would you do, has nothing to do with this.

Supposedly a God gave laws to his special people. One would expect these laws to improve that people, and people in general. Instead we have laws written by man allowing man to do what he wants - murder, RAPE, own REAL SLAVES FOREVER, etc.

Having said all that, and this is a complicated subject, the law still stands as far as I am concerned, but refers to the higher realms of consciousness that we come from. Thus each realm will have its own servants and possessions of them. Interesting really, as this is the where the law really belongs. We have intuitively used it in our own realm. We must then be possessions to a higher authority within the divine-print.

It is hilarious when we are discussing laws that even YOU argue with here, and the Hebrew actually followed, and yet you try to squirm out of actual meaning by saying they refer to higher realms of consciousness. Anyone can say such about any text. It obviously does not make it so.

So in short, if used correctly, I see no problem with allowing a woman to have children (which is what she will probably want) whether it is his wife or a concubine or not. The concubine gave the wife rest from constant child birth to gain a larger tribe and therefore more men to fight and survive, and with little way of contraception. They should, however, have been following the first-print which is Adam and Chavvah, one man/one woman.

It is always interesting when a male view is that RAPE is OK, - or somehow not rape! Concubines are bought sex slaves - and any children forced on them are from RAPE. Also, the text I showed you was about SLAVES being bred - and their babies being new owned SLAVES for the owner/master.

The servant taken into "distant time" or aeons, is not necessarily forever - as there is no such word in the OT or the NT, just poor translation.

Again - pure bull on your part. It says they can be handed on as an inheritance. They are owned for their whole lives, and their bred babies are new slaves for the master.

And if you use that word "rape " with abandonment, you weaken its power as a word. There is no reason to think that all women taken in war were raped. Some might have been glad of their new mate.

BULL! BULL! BULL! See above - abut screwing murdering enemies!

Though you have brought up an interesting subject, and I am willing to discuss it more and see if you are right. So far I think you see it through the wrong eyes. Eyes that neither like God nor men in power; nor are you considering the times they lived in.

And again - times they lived in does not change how people feel - when their families are slaughtered, when women are RAPED, and people are made slaves for the rest of their lives, and any children's lives!

 

[Ingledsva]

Because it is.

Again - YOU are calling the laws you can't counter - spiritually discerned. That does NOT make it so. The Hebrew obviously followed the laws as real - and straight from YHVH.

accept for the spiritually discerned part I guess.

The NT tells you plainly that those who do not believe are "deluded" and that the text is "spiritually discerned". If you can't accept that, you will learn nothing. Now pick one part and not many and I will answer. Don't think that throwing many things at me will stop me answering; it won't. But if you wish to discuss and not just throw every pot and pan out of the kitchen at me, calm down and find one part that you wish to discuss. I await your answer to the main post.

The ideas about Jesus, and his message, rising, etc. being "spiritually discerned" - does not in any way change the fact that your Bible says the Tanakh Laws are from YHVH - and says Jesus did not come to change them! So try again!

You must know though, that we are God, we are the God of flesh. We reflect him in a physical way. How do you think he communicated with them in the OT, for example on Mt Sinai? We make God, he makes us. Do you now what that means? Do you know who you are?

That is your opinion. The Bible does not say that.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

Agnostics with a bent toward a God, - do not have to believe YOUR Bible's God, - is actually God. Not believing YOUR YHVH is GOD obviously does not turn all the religious people in the world, - believing in other Gods, - into Atheists! That is just ridiculous on your part.

Are you now trying to say you beleive in a God?

WOW! I can't believe you still don't understand what Agnosticism is, and what is being said to you.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable. from Wikipedia

SO - any Agnostics, - (not me,) - with a slight bent to the - there might be a God side, - do not have to believe YOUR YHVH is that God.

You seem to be stuck believing any time "God" is used - it means YOUR choice of religion, - which of course it does NOT.

How you come up with - Agnostics not believing in YOUR idea of God - somehow makes them Atheists - is beyond me?

They could be leaning toward any God, or just some Divine Force, etc.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

*

Again BULL! You keep saying people just do these things, - when I am talking about actual HEBREW LAWS, supposedly from YHVH, that allow for rape, murder, and REAL slavery (only Hebrew indentured servants could go free after a time.)

"Times were different then" - is ridiculous!

There is no difference to the raped women - then or now! No difference to the murdered - then or now. No difference to the enslaved people - then or now!

Wrong is wrong - and your Bible's YHVH doesn't seem to know what wrong/evil is, - as supposedly he put in laws to allow it.

This is too vague. You can't throw about such accusations without backing them up. Calm down a bit, come of the ceiling, and pick one verse of paragraph.

There is nothing vague about anything I have posted to you.

I have posted the actual laws, - scholarly work on their meanings, - and ancient texts showing the Hebrew read them the same way.

You on the other hand have tried to twist the facts.

You keep posting that they didn't have REAL SLAVERY - even though you have been shown the texts, and ancient commentary on those texts.

You twist rape in war - into - the surviving women of the death carnage somehow want to be taken to the enemy camp and screwed!

Now you are turning to what is in YOUR head - as answers, - "spiritual discernment" - what a copout, when you can't argue for what your Bible actually says.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

The God of the aeons is many faceted and not static as you think. In some ways, he is not perfect. I never said he was. Yhvh is reflective and is all gods, powers, authorities and realms.

If YHVH is not perfect, and gave license in his laws, for man to do evil things like murder for being different, slavery, sanctioned RAPE, etc.

Then YHVH is obviously not God, and the Bible is written by Iron Age patriarchal men whom wanted to murder, enslave, and rape.

*

 

[Robert.Evans]

Because that is where YOUR God comes from, - and supposedly the laws are straight from that God!

You need to start listening to my explanation about my understanding, rather than force yours onto me.

That is not my God. Okay?

BULL! I'm talking about the God of the Bible. I find it funny you have to fudge around to feel comfortable with the Bible, and your chosen religion.

We follow the spirit now and the Law of Christ. The God of the OT is not the God of the NT. Are you telling me he has mellowed with age!

ABSOLUTE BULL on your part. No breaking the law! I showed you the actual laws saying they could hold and breed slaves - FOREVER. The babies belong to the slave owner.

That is there law, not mine. And I have explained, there is no mention of forever in the original text. It means into distant time, or something similar. Exodus was the original law. Everything after was added

I suggest you read up on the 613 Commandments.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments.htm

There is a difference of opinion as to whether there are 613 or not, firstly. Secondly, that is a Jewish interpretation. I do not agree with them all, and some could be spit or added to others. Either way, added since Exodus.

That is funny! What is your different God's name, and where did he come from, and why if you don't follow the YHVH Laws do you fight for them, and use them in argument, on this forum? Homosexuality, etc.

There is ultimately only one God. I doubt you would be interested in listening going off your previous comments thus far; but it is reflective, like a family, and hence the reasons we have family here. It is the same name

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is PURE RED HERRING! What would you do, has nothing to do with this.

Supposedly a God gave laws to his special people. One would expect these laws to improve that people, and people in general. Instead we have laws written by man allowing man to do what he wants - murder, RAPE, own REAL SLAVES FOREVER, etc.




It is hilarious when we are discussing laws that even YOU argue with here, and the Hebrew actually followed, and yet you try to squirm out of actual meaning by saying they refer to higher realms of consciousness. Anyone can say such about any text. It obviously does not make it so.




It is always interesting when a male view is that RAPE is OK, - or somehow not rape! Concubines are bought sex slaves - and any children forced on them are from RAPE. Also, the text I showed you was about SLAVES being bred - and their babies being new owned SLAVES for the owner/master.




Again - pure bull on your part. It says they can be handed on as an inheritance. They are owned for their whole lives, and their bred babies are new slaves for the master.




BULL! BULL! BULL! See above - abut screwing murdering enemies!




And again - times they lived in does not change how people feel - when their families are slaughtered, when women are RAPED, and people are made slaves for the rest of their lives, and any children's lives!

You have answered nothing. You have too much of a problem with the OT God to get into any serious form of discussion. This is just therapy for you. A chance to hurl abuse. I have answered all your comments there and you have ignored them because they don't line up with your own non-believing ideology.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Again - YOU are calling the laws you can't counter - spiritually discerned. That does NOT make it so. The Hebrew obviously followed the laws as real - and straight from YHVH.

You are carnal and don’t understand. These things are spiritually discerened. You will not understand by screaming your head off as you are. All you do is blind yourself to any meaningful understanding – which you obviously don’t want anyway. I think you hate the God of the OT too much for that. The funny thing is, that’s YOUR God.

The ideas about Jesus, and his message, rising, etc. being "spiritually discerned" - does not in any way change the fact that your Bible says the Tanakh Laws are from YHVH - and says Jesus did not come to change them! So try again!

Till all things are fulfilled- he said. Do you never read then past the four gospels? Apparently not.

That is your opinion. The Bible does not say that.

The bible does say that and other scripture besides. There is no law written that says it all has to come from the bible. It is you that cannot see it. Spiritual blindness takes you to a place of no understanding. That seems obvious.

 

[Robert.Evans]

WOW! I can't believe you still don't understand what Agnosticism is, and what is being said to you.


Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable. from Wikipedia

I know what agnostic means, and I know what YOU said. You should try reading your own writings some times.

SO - any Agnostics, - (not me,) - with a slight bent to the - there might be a God side, - do not have to believe YOUR YHVH is that God.

You seem to be stuck believing any time "God" is used - it means YOUR choice of religion, - which of course it does NOT.

There is only ONE Ultimate God, and that is Yhvh. There is plenty of evidence of that considering the three main faiths come from it. You have serious problems with men ruling I think. That is why you don’t like the OT. You sound more and more like a woman.

How you come up with - Agnostics not believing in YOUR idea of God - somehow makes them Atheists - is beyond me?

I didn’t come up with that, you just did. What I said is that you might well be agnostic but you have atheist comments. Tell me what the difference is. I have asked you once, I will ask you again: Do you believe in A God?

They could be leaning toward any God, or just some Divine Force, etc.


*

They could, and that would be the One God. The Ultimate. How much evidence do you need?

 

[Robert.Evans]

There is nothing vague about anything I have posted to you.

I have posted the actual laws, - scholarly work on their meanings, - and ancient texts showing the Hebrew read them the same way.

You on the other hand have tried to twist the facts.

No, I have given you the truer meaning which doesn't fit your mindset

 

[Robert.Evans]

You keep posting that they didn't have REAL SLAVERY - even though you have been shown the texts, and ancient commentary on those texts.

I didn't say they didn't. I said that man does abuse things. I was telling you what the original law was for. Law was added to because man could not keep the original law, the original law of ten words.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You twist rape in war - into - the surviving women of the death carnage somehow want to be taken to the enemy camp and screwed!

Now you are turning to what is in YOUR head - as answers, - "spiritual discernment" - what a copout, when you can't argue for what your Bible actually says.

I am answering. But I asked you, At the end of a battle, what would you do? There are women left and the men have fled. Do you leave them there? Do you take them with them but don't allow them to have kids? Do you run them through with a sword? Tell me. ' ll wait.

Spiritual discernment allows me to interpret the text better than you - not a surprise really when it is my subject and not yours. This is why you shouldn't be reading sacred text in the first place. Interesting however how it has the ability to make one believe and send another up the wall.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If YHVH is not perfect, and gave license in his laws, for man to do evil things like murder for being different, slavery, sanctioned RAPE, etc.

Then YHVH is obviously not God, and the Bible is written by Iron Age patriarchal men whom wanted to murder, enslave, and rape.

*

Again you don’t understand. The Ultimate One is Reflective. What you see now, whatever it might be, has happened before. That includes God. Does that mean there is more than one God. The simple answer is no- but there is separation.

It is the same idea as a family – they have the same name passed on.


And when you keep on about: “Then YHVH is obviously not God, and the Bible is written by Iron Age patriarchal men whom wanted to murder, enslave, and rape.” You show your true motives.