Tired of the "why did God allow ……." posts.

[Simplelogic]

"All or nothing?

Much of Christianity works from the premise that the Bible as a whole is the infallible word of God. But no sooner does one begin to question some part of it than a Bible believing Christian indicates that to reject any one part of the Bible is to render the entire book irrelevant. The flow of logic supposes that if one part can be rejected, then it's open season to reject any part one doesn't like. Therefore the Bible as a whole is viewed as God's flawless revelation to man. While on the surface this logic sounds reasonable, it is not necessarily true. Besides calling for the reckless abandon of blind faith in a book, a practice that isn't any more credible than Islam's faith in the Koran, it is also interesting to note that in demanding this standard, Christianity has tied its own noose. There are atheists who would like to discredit the entire book, and there are many Jews who would like to discredit the New Testament. So if either group can demonstrate even one little error in the New Testament they both win by Christianity's own standards! Christian teachers need to come to grips with the fact that there are numerous significant errors that cannot be reconciled with the classic bend-over-backwards apologetics of the past. Visit any atheistic or Jewish anti-missionary website and brace yourself. By demonstrating error in the Bible, those opposed to God and Christianity have proven that the New Testament is no longer the infallible word of God. These now have legitimate grounds on which to continue rejecting the truth that the Bible does contain. Christianity has to a large degree handed them this logic and win on a silver platter. Speaking for myself, I no longer begin with the premise that the Bible is infallible cover to cover. Blind faith in any book is dangerous. But what I believe to be the truth is far more objective than being a simple matter of picking and choosing what suits any particular fancy. Here are the presuppositions that I work from;

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is the one true Most High God, and the creator of the heavens and earth.

His word is truth, and it can be found in the books of Moses, and the prophets, as well as in the words of Yeshua. What these men actually said never conflicts with the others. Yeshua's words would be the same as those found in red in a red-letter edition Bible.

The truth will always be consistent with itself with no contradictions. It is therefore assumed, that in the rare cases when contradiction is found, it is due to man's influence over the centuries. These contradictions are almost never more than one passage standing against numerous others, and the favor always goes with the majority. "

What is the word of God

 

[Kolibri]

I agree regarding accuracy but infallibility is a completely different thing. The concept of infallibility is based on the calvanist version of God. A God who micromanages the will and decisions of men throughout there lives. This means that God meticulously ordained each word preserved in the scriptures. I don't agree with this logic but I do believe that humans, especially the Jews, have gone to great lengths to preserve the accounts throughout the ages. This doesn't mean they were perfect. Many people forget that man was tasked with preserving His word from the beginning. They also forget that men have failed to persevere numerous books of the Bible which still don't have today, yet they are mentioned in the text as scripture. Enoch is quoted by Jude, Yeshua's brother and Jasher is quoted in the Tanakh.

It makes sense that word choice and word order would need to be adjusted as time goes by to retain the thought. It is the thought that is preserved by keeping the text in the common tongue as used by the people reading it. There are details such as numbers that might seem contradictory, but are understandable when one take into consideration the person used to transmit the thought. Different details are important to any person who relates an account. Lets take two comparisons.

How did Judas die?
Matthew 27:5 relates that Judas "hanged himself." But Acts 1:18 says that "falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out."
Matthew seems to deal with the mode of the attempted suicide, while Acts (written by a physician) describes the result.
It appears that Judas tried to hang himself over some cliff, but the rope or the tree limb broke so he fell hard on the rocks below.
The topography around Jerusalem makes this harmonization reasonable.

23,000?
Numbers 25:9 says that "Those that died from the scourge amounted to 24,000."
Relating the same event Paul writes: "only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day."
The figure given in Numbers evidently included “the leaders (Lit., "heads") of the people” executed by the judges, which may have amounted to 1,000 men, and those executed directly by Jehovah.—Numbers 25:4, 5.

There are other "discrepancies" but again, these things do harmonize out with a little effort or a little help. One does not need to think it that we must conclude that what is in scripture is merely an approximation full of errors in the originals..

 

[Simplelogic]

It makes sense that word choice and word order would need to be adjusted as time goes by to retain the thought. It is the thought that is preserved by keeping the text in the common tongue as used by the people reading it. There are details such as numbers that might seem contradictory, but are understandable when one take into consideration the person used to transmit the thought. Different details are important to any person who relates an account. Lets take two comparisons.

How did Judas die?
Matthew 27:5 relates that Judas "hanged himself." But Acts 1:18 says that "falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out."
Matthew seems to deal with the mode of the attempted suicide, while Acts (written by a physician) describes the result.
It appears that Judas tried to hang himself over some cliff, but the rope or the tree limb broke so he fell hard on the rocks below.
The topography around Jerusalem makes this harmonization reasonable.

23,000?
Numbers 25:9 says that "Those that died from the scourge amounted to 24,000."
Relating the same event Paul writes: "only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day."
The figure given in Numbers evidently included “the leaders (Lit., "heads") of the people” executed by the judges, which may have amounted to 1,000 men, and those executed directly by Jehovah.—Numbers 25:4, 5.

There are other "discrepancies" but again, these things do harmonize out with a little effort or a little help. One does not need to think it that we must conclude that what is in scripture is merely an approximation full of errors in the originals..

Most of the little issue are easily resolved. I agree.

 

[Sleeppy]

"All or nothing?

Much of Christianity works from the premise that the Bible as a whole is the infallible word of God. But no sooner does one begin to question some part of it than a Bible believing Christian indicates that to reject any one part of the Bible is to render the entire book irrelevant. The flow of logic supposes that if one part can be rejected, then it's open season to reject any part one doesn't like. Therefore the Bible as a whole is viewed as God's flawless revelation to man. While on the surface this logic sounds reasonable, it is not necessarily true. Besides calling for the reckless abandon of blind faith in a book, a practice that isn't any more credible than Islam's faith in the Koran, it is also interesting to note that in demanding this standard, Christianity has tied its own noose. There are atheists who would like to discredit the entire book, and there are many Jews who would like to discredit the New Testament. So if either group can demonstrate even one little error in the New Testament they both win by Christianity's own standards! Christian teachers need to come to grips with the fact that there are numerous significant errors that cannot be reconciled with the classic bend-over-backwards apologetics of the past. Visit any atheistic or Jewish anti-missionary website and brace yourself. By demonstrating error in the Bible, those opposed to God and Christianity have proven that the New Testament is no longer the infallible word of God. These now have legitimate grounds on which to continue rejecting the truth that the Bible does contain. Christianity has to a large degree handed them this logic and win on a silver platter. Speaking for myself, I no longer begin with the premise that the Bible is infallible cover to cover. Blind faith in any book is dangerous. But what I believe to be the truth is far more objective than being a simple matter of picking and choosing what suits any particular fancy. Here are the presuppositions that I work from;

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is the one true Most High God, and the creator of the heavens and earth.

His word is truth, and it can be found in the books of Moses, and the prophets, as well as in the words of Yeshua. What these men actually said never conflicts with the others. Yeshua's words would be the same as those found in red in a red-letter edition Bible.

The truth will always be consistent with itself with no contradictions. It is therefore assumed, that in the rare cases when contradiction is found, it is due to man's influence over the centuries. These contradictions are almost never more than one passage standing against numerous others, and the favor always goes with the majority. "

What is the word of God

Proven or questioned.

 

[Simplelogic]

"When it comes to the words of other writers in the Bible, there is still much truth that can be extracted from them. But they are subject to error and must be held accountable to the truth established in Moses, the Prophets, and Yeshua. This includes the narrative parts of Gospels as well. The authors of the gospels regularly interjected their own commentaries and recollections that have on occasion proven to be in error. For example, the author of the book of Matthew regularly made an attempt to connect events in Yeshua's life with prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. Though he made a number of accurate connections, he also made a number of inaccurate ones. The first three times he attempted to make a connection he erred, and used a text that had absolutely nothing to do with Yeshua. His first mistake was in quoting an Isaiah prophecy which supposedly concerned Yeshua's virgin birth. There are a number of good reasons to continue to believe Yeshua was born of a virgin, but Isaiah 7:14 is not one of them. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with a virgin or Yeshua! Jews know that the Hebrew word translated "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 in Christian Bibles carries no connotation of virginity, but is often used in reference to a young married woman. In its full context, this passage is clearly speaking of Isaiah's wife. See Isaiah 7:10 - 8:10. This is only one of several blunders made by the author of Matthew. Knowing this, the Jews have legitimate grounds to discount the Gospels altogether. If Christianity hadn't held out for all-or-nothing infallibility, it maybe wouldn't have ended up with nothing in the eyes of many Jews.

The narrative parts of the gospels concerning events surrounding Yeshua's words could still be considered as reliable as reading a news paper today. One can obtain many facts and much truth from the news paper without anyone considering it word of God. But there are the occasional misunderstandings as well as editorials and commentary that depart significantly from the truth. Yet we read it for the truth we can still get from it. "

What is the word of God

 

[Kolibri]

"When it comes to the words of other writers in the Bible, there is still much truth that can be extracted from them. But they are subject to error and must be held accountable to the truth established in Moses, the Prophets, and Yeshua. This includes the narrative parts of Gospels as well. The authors of the gospels regularly interjected their own commentaries and recollections that have on occasion proven to be in error. For example, the author of the book of Matthew regularly made an attempt to connect events in Yeshua's life with prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. Though he made a number of accurate connections, he also made a number of inaccurate ones. The first three times he attempted to make a connection he erred, and used a text that had absolutely nothing to do with Yeshua. His first mistake was in quoting an Isaiah prophecy which supposedly concerned Yeshua's virgin birth. There are a number of good reasons to continue to believe Yeshua was born of a virgin, but Isaiah 7:14 is not one of them. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with a virgin or Yeshua! Jews know that the Hebrew word translated "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 in Christian Bibles carries no connotation of virginity, but is often used in reference to a young married woman. In its full context, this passage is clearly speaking of Isaiah's wife. See Isaiah 7:10 - 8:10. This is only one of several blunders made by the author of Matthew. Knowing this, the Jews have legitimate grounds to discount the Gospels altogether. If Christianity hadn't held out for all-or-nothing infallibility, it maybe wouldn't have ended up with nothing in the eyes of many Jews.

The narrative parts of the gospels concerning events surrounding Yeshua's words could still be considered as reliable as reading a news paper today. One can obtain many facts and much truth from the news paper without anyone considering it word of God. But there are the occasional misunderstandings as well as editorials and commentary that depart significantly from the truth. Yet we read it for the truth we can still get from it. "

What is the word of God

I think we covered this Isaiah 7:14 already. In review the Hebrew word for young maiden has been used in other places in Hebrew scripture to mean both virgins and non-virgins depending on the context. In the case of Matthew the Greek word used limited the type of young maiden in the case of our Lord's human mother. What are the other 2 this commentary supposes are mistaken as far as being prophetic?

Remember the Jews of the day also thought the Christ would be a political revolutionary as well. They discounted the prophecies that clearly showed he would need to die first as it did not fit their wishful expectations. So their own understanding of the sacred texts given them is questionable.

 

[Simplelogic]

I think we covered this Isaiah 7:14 already. In review the Hebrew word for young maiden has been used in other places in Hebrew scripture to mean both virgins and non-virgins depending on the context. In the case of Matthew the Greek word used limited the type of young maiden in the case of our Lord's human mother. What are the other 2 this commentary supposes are mistaken as far as being prophetic?

Remember the Jews of the day also thought the Christ would be a political revolutionary as well. They discounted the prophecies that clearly showed he would need to die first as it did not fit their wishful expectations. So their own understanding of the sacred texts given them is questionable.

Need to do a Isaiah 7:14 thread

 

[Kolibri]

probably

 

[Ingledsva]

Can you name the archaeologists who refuted it?

Absolutely false.


"Origins: On 24 October 2014, the fake news site World News Daily Report published an article claiming chariot wheels and the bones of horses had been discovered at the bottom of the Red Sea. While the site framed the "discovery" as recent and newly announced, the Red Sea chariot hoax has been circulating on the Internet for many years."

Read more at snopes.com: Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea

"Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax Persists"

Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax Persists

*

 

[Ingledsva]

It makes sense that word choice and word order would need to be adjusted as time goes by to retain the thought. It is the thought that is preserved by keeping the text in the common tongue as used by the people reading it. There are details such as numbers that might seem contradictory, but are understandable when one take into consideration the person used to transmit the thought. Different details are important to any person who relates an account. Lets take two comparisons.

How did Judas die?
Matthew 27:5 relates that Judas "hanged himself." But Acts 1:18 says that "falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out."
Matthew seems to deal with the mode of the attempted suicide, while Acts (written by a physician) describes the result.
It appears that Judas tried to hang himself over some cliff, but the rope or the tree limb broke so he fell hard on the rocks below.
The topography around Jerusalem makes this harmonization reasonable.

..

This is called adding to the text. It does not say that, nor even imply it.

It says he bought a field. Nothing about cliffs and falling on rocks, etc.

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

All we have are two different stories, by two people that were not there.

*

 

[Kolibri]

This is called adding to the text. It does not say that, nor even imply it.

It says he bought a field. Nothing about cliffs and falling on rocks, etc.

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

All we have are two different stories, by two people that were not there.

*

somebody had to find the body. If a rope was found around his neck while he was disemboweled on rocks. it would be reasonable to have both statements be true with little effort.
Matthew may have seen the body himself, we do not know. But we do know that Luke traced things down to get details from records or eyewitnesses.

The determination that that one or the other must be false, if not both is in line with your rejection of the text. Unless they can be proven to both be correct you wish them to be falsehood. Am I wrong?

 

[Ingledsva]

somebody had to find the body. If a rope was found around his neck while he was disemboweled on rocks. it would be reasonable to have both statements be true with little effort.
Matthew may have seen the body himself, we do not know. But we do know that Luke traced things down to get details from records or eyewitnesses.

The determination that that one or the other must be false, if not both is in line with your rejection of the text. Unless they can be proven to both be correct you wish them to be falsehood. Am I wrong?

The texts themselves show there are errors.

They were written by different people at different times, that were not there, - not by witnesses from two different angles.

You cannot just add to them, to try and make them connect.

*

 

[Kolibri]

Matthew was likely written about 41 C.E.
Acts about 61 C.E.
unless you can prove otherwise, that is close enough to determine a reasonable harmonization.

For Matthew, subscriptions, appearing at the end of the Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the 10th century C.E.) say that the account was written about the 8th year after Christ's ascension. While this is not conclusive evidence it does fit the internal evidence in that there is no reference to the fulfillment of Jesus' prophesy respecting Jerusalem's destruction. This places the time of writing prior to 70 C.E. The expression "to this very day" (Mt 27:8; 28:15) indicates that there was some lapse of time between the events written about and the writing.

For Acts of Apostles, it covers approximately 28 years, from Jesus' ascension in 33 C.E. to the end of the second year of Paul's imprisonment in Rome about 61 C.E. So it could not have been completed earlier. And yet had it been written later, it would be reasonable to expect more information about Paul; and if written after the year 64 C.E., surely there would have been mention made of Nero's violent persecution that began then, and Jerusalem's destruction if after 70 C.E.

Acts' accuracy has been verified over the years by a number of archaeological discoveries.
Act 13:7 says that Sergius Paulus was the proconsul of Cyprus, and inscription foun din Cyprus proves that the the island did come under the direct rule of the Roman Senate in the person of a provincial governor called a proconsul. Similar evidence has been found secularly that Gallio was proconsul of Cointh, the capital of Achaia (Acts 18:12) Also, an inscription on an archway in Thessalonica (fragmentally preserved in the British Museum) shows that Act 17:8 is correct in speaking of "the city rulers" ("poliarchs," governors of the citizens), even though this title is not found in classical literature.

Medical term and expressions in the book are in agreement with the Greek medical writers of the time. Modes of travel were essentially as described. Ancient vessel did not have a single rudder but were controlled by two large oar, hence accurately spoken of in the plural number. (Acts 27:40) The description of Paul's voyage by ship to Rome as in the time it took, the distance traveled, and the places visited is acknowledged by modern seamen familar with the region as completely reliable.

Acts 14:1-6 places Lystra and Derbe within the territory of Lycaonia but implies that Iconium was in another country. Roman writers, including Cicero, referred to Iconium as being in Lycaonia. However, a monument discovered in 1910 shows that Iconium was considered to actually be a city of Phrygia rather than of Lycaonia.

Where is the proof that they were too distant from the event to have both been correct from different viewpoints?

 

[tkdrocks]

"All or nothing?

Much of Christianity works from the premise that the Bible as a whole is the infallible word of God. But no sooner does one begin to question some part of it than a Bible believing Christian indicates that to reject any one part of the Bible is to render the entire book irrelevant. The flow of logic supposes that if one part can be rejected, then it's open season to reject any part one doesn't like. Therefore the Bible as a whole is viewed as God's flawless revelation to man. While on the surface this logic sounds reasonable, it is not necessarily true. Besides calling for the reckless abandon of blind faith in a book, a practice that isn't any more credible than Islam's faith in the Koran, it is also interesting to note that in demanding this standard, Christianity has tied its own noose. There are atheists who would like to discredit the entire book, and there are many Jews who would like to discredit the New Testament. So if either group can demonstrate even one little error in the New Testament they both win by Christianity's own standards! Christian teachers need to come to grips with the fact that there are numerous significant errors that cannot be reconciled with the classic bend-over-backwards apologetics of the past. Visit any atheistic or Jewish anti-missionary website and brace yourself. By demonstrating error in the Bible, those opposed to God and Christianity have proven that the New Testament is no longer the infallible word of God. These now have legitimate grounds on which to continue rejecting the truth that the Bible does contain. Christianity has to a large degree handed them this logic and win on a silver platter. Speaking for myself, I no longer begin with the premise that the Bible is infallible cover to cover. Blind faith in any book is dangerous. But what I believe to be the truth is far more objective than being a simple matter of picking and choosing what suits any particular fancy. Here are the presuppositions that I work from;

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is the one true Most High God, and the creator of the heavens and earth.

His word is truth, and it can be found in the books of Moses, and the prophets, as well as in the words of Yeshua. What these men actually said never conflicts with the others. Yeshua's words would be the same as those found in red in a red-letter edition Bible.

The truth will always be consistent with itself with no contradictions. It is therefore assumed, that in the rare cases when contradiction is found, it is due to man's influence over the centuries. These contradictions are almost never more than one passage standing against numerous others, and the favor always goes with the majority. "

What is the word of God

I would agree that apologists of the past did put themselves into quite a corner when they put the Bible on such a high pedestal of infallibility and perfection. Of course, those were the days before we had such easy access to information, so it was much more difficult to challenge them. There are still a few that still hold to that and it is quite fun to punch holes in that premise and watch them squirm. It is the first step in dismantling the faith in revealed religion and yes, that is my ultimate goal.

So progress is being made. You have already concluded that the Bible was written by fallible men. This is important progress because, the less mystical a ideology is, the less violence is related to it. You may notice how much less venom resides in Christianity these days compared to the days when it was a capital crime to blaspheme against it.

Now many will choose to, next, go after contradictions in the Bible. Some of them are just silly like "a bat is a bird", who cares? Or 41,000 troops vs 40,000 somewhere else. This is not a big deal, we have already established that the text was written by error prone humans.

However, there are some very important inconsistencies that exist due to changing of the guard over time; revisions, if you will. Now this really needs it own thread, but there appears to be a time when Judaism shifted from polytheism to monotheism (many books written on this topic). Just like anywhere else in history, the victors get to write and revise history to make the losing side appear evil and deserving of extermination/enslavement.

Per historicity, like I said, it is sprinkled in there and archaeology is a fairly recent enterprise. It may use science in some of its methods, but archaeology is not a science. Often the researchers have their own agenda and assumptions and funding when they begin the analysis and fall prey to confirmation bias just like everyone else. On top of that, everyone wants to cling to the organizations whose "findings" support their own beliefs.

Finally, I believe it was Mark Twain that said, "It isn't what I don't understand about the Bible that scares me, it is the parts that I do understand." (My paraphrase) Since we are focusing on the Torah, you have to think about the talking snakes and donkeys. You must consider the genocides ordered/sanctioned by God. The Torah supports misogeny, validates the kidnapping and rape of young women (virgins, of course). It describes (justly?) a man being killed for the 'crime' of collecting sticks on the Sabbath. Not to mention, populating the world twice via incest and the condemning to death of men for touching each others 'pee-pees'. This is where my battle focuses on now. If I can get you to question your faith and just raise some doubts within you (you don't have to admit it now, it's ok), then I have done my job.

So, go ahead, perform those mental gymnastics. It lets me know that you are struggling to square those circles and, one day, like me, if you are honest with yourself, you will free yourselves from those shackles.

 

[Simplelogic]

I would agree that apologists of the past did put themselves into quite a corner when they put the Bible on such a high pedestal of infallibility and perfection. Of course, those were the days before we had such easy access to information, so it was much more difficult to challenge them. There are still a few that still hold to that and it is quite fun to punch holes in that premise and watch them squirm. It is the first step in dismantling the faith in revealed religion and yes, that is my ultimate goal.

So progress is being made. You have already concluded that the Bible was written by fallible men. This is important progress because, the less mystical a ideology is, the less violence is related to it. You may notice how much less venom resides in Christianity these days compared to the days when it was a capital crime to blaspheme against it.

Now many will choose to, next, go after contradictions in the Bible. Some of them are just silly like "a bat is a bird", who cares? Or 41,000 troops vs 40,000 somewhere else. This is not a big deal, we have already established that the text was written by error prone humans.

However, there are some very important inconsistencies that exist due to changing of the guard over time; revisions, if you will. Now this really needs it own thread, but there appears to be a time when Judaism shifted from polytheism to monotheism (many books written on this topic). Just like anywhere else in history, the victors get to write and revise history to make the losing side appear evil and deserving of extermination/enslavement.

Per historicity, like I said, it is sprinkled in there and archaeology is a fairly recent enterprise. It may use science in some of its methods, but archaeology is not a science. Often the researchers have their own agenda and assumptions and funding when they begin the analysis and fall prey to confirmation bias just like everyone else. On top of that, everyone wants to cling to the organizations whose "findings" support their own beliefs.

Finally, I believe it was Mark Twain that said, "It isn't what I don't understand about the Bible that scares me, it is the parts that I do understand." (My paraphrase) Since we are focusing on the Torah, you have to think about the talking snakes and donkeys. You must consider the genocides ordered/sanctioned by God. The Torah supports misogeny, validates the kidnapping and rape of young women (virgins, of course). It describes (justly?) a man being killed for the 'crime' of collecting sticks on the Sabbath. Not to mention, populating the world twice via incest and the condemning to death of men for touching each others 'pee-pees'. This is where my battle focuses on now. If I can get you to question your faith and just raise some doubts within you (you don't have to admit it now, it's ok), then I have done my job.

So, go ahead, perform those mental gymnastics. It lets me know that you are struggling to square those circles and, one day, like me, if you are honest with yourself, you will free yourselves from those shackles.

These are common accusations of the Torah of Moses. I look forward to addressing each one with you in detail. I will respond briefly to each one. Not to prove anything to you, but to let you know my stance on each for further discussion.

Talking snakes and donkeys: I believe this can happen

Genocides: Yes. YHVH did bring genocides upon people. I stand by YHVH's decision to do this. Nor do I believe that YHVH has changed since. Looking forward to this one.

Misogyny: Plural marriages and male authority does not mean misogyny. Though I understand that our society has demonized these practices.

Kidnapping and rape: No….never. The Torah does not prohibit either of these claims. I know what verses you are talking about though.

Sabbath: I agree with YHVH killing the man who rebelled against God's command.

Incest: Nope…strictly forbidden. Though almost every other culture did practice this.

Homosexuality: I agree with the text. It is evil.

Well. I have given you plenty of ammo here. Let me know if you want to discuss any of these topics. I will not attempt to do any bend over backwards apologetics to defend God. I don't believe He needs it.

 

[Simplelogic]

Absolutely false.


"Origins: On 24 October 2014, the fake news site World News Daily Report published an article claiming chariot wheels and the bones of horses had been discovered at the bottom of the Red Sea. While the site framed the "discovery" as recent and newly announced, the Red Sea chariot hoax has been circulating on the Internet for many years."

Read more at snopes.com: Chariot Wheels Found at the Bottom of the Red Sea

"Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax Persists"

Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax Persists

*

Wow. You found one article attacking world net daily…who cares. Did you find an archeologist who discredited these claims?

 

[tkdrocks]

Your Quote: " ...

Talking snakes and donkeys: I believe this can happen

Misogyny: Plural marriages and male authority does not mean misogyny. Though I understand that our society has demonized these practices.

Sabbath: I agree with YHVH killing the man who rebelled against God's command.

Incest: Nope…strictly forbidden. Though almost every other culture did practice this.

Homosexuality: I agree with the text. It is evil.

Well. I have given you plenty of ammo here. Let me know if you want to discuss any of these topics. I will not attempt to do any bend over backwards apologetics to defend God. I don't believe He needs it.
************************************

Let's start with some low hanging fruit, shall we?

1. {Homosexuality: I agree with the text. It is evil.}
I seem to remember you liking my comment on 'evil' which says that it does not exist, only things that harm and do not harm others. Consensual homosexuality harms no one, so how is that evil?

2. {Incest: Nope…strictly forbidden. Though almost every other culture did practice this}

Um, I do believe that Adam and Eve and the story of Noah are in the Torah, Yes? They were told to be fruitful and multiply. Talk about the Bible writing itself into a corner.

3. {Sabbath: I agree with YHVH killing the man who rebelled against God's command.}

All I can say is I hope you are never put in a position of authority over the lives of innocents. This is actually pretty shocking in the 21st century.

4. {Misogyny: Plural marriages and male authority does not mean misogyny. Though I understand that our society has demonized these practices. }

I have zero issue with consensual plural marriages, they harm no one and it a lifestyle choice. But you know very well that women were treated as chattel or property to be traded. This was not unique to Judaism, but remember, we are talking about the Torah. You might find a couple of verses that seem to minimize this, but it can definitely be used to support it in other places, so they do not cancel each other out like some math problem. You see treating a person like a second class citizen because of their gender is causing harm just to let you know that I am being consistent in my criticism.

5. {Talking snakes and donkeys: I believe this can happen}

I think you might be able to get a prescription for this.

Here is a link to more information about antipsychotic medicines. Antipsychotic Medications - Mental Health Center: Medical Information on Mental Illness

On a more serious note, of course you have to believe this. Otherwise, it all starts to unravel.

That is all I have time for right now, but this conversation is good. You are not only helping yourself, but everyone else who reads this thread as their jaws drop to the floor like mine did when you agreed that killing a person for picking up sticks was justified.

Just be true to yourself. It may take years to flower, but my seeds of doubt should take root eventually.

 

[Ingledsva]

Wow. You found one article attacking world net daily…who cares. Did you find an archeologist who discredited these claims?

LOL! Dude, Snopes is one of the sites where you go to find out if something is real, - or false. That is what they do.

They give all sources, and link where possible.

A very good source during political events, and the crap each side CLAIMS the other side said.

EDIT - More info -

Archaeologist Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc."
Ron Wyatt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Your Quote: " ...

Talking snakes and donkeys: I believe this can happen

Misogyny: Plural marriages and male authority does not mean misogyny. Though I understand that our society has demonized these practices.

Sabbath: I agree with YHVH killing the man who rebelled against God's command.

Incest: Nope…strictly forbidden. Though almost every other culture did practice this.

Homosexuality: I agree with the text. It is evil.

Well. I have given you plenty of ammo here. Let me know if you want to discuss any of these topics. I will not attempt to do any bend over backwards apologetics to defend God. I don't believe He needs it.
************************************

Let's start with some low hanging fruit, shall we?

1. {Homosexuality: I agree with the text. It is evil.}
I seem to remember you liking my comment on 'evil' which says that it does not exist, only things that harm and do not harm others. Consensual homosexuality harms no one, so how is that evil?

2. {Incest: Nope…strictly forbidden. Though almost every other culture did practice this}

Um, I do believe that Adam and Eve and the story of Noah are in the Torah, Yes? They were told to be fruitful and multiply. Talk about the Bible writing itself into a corner.

3. {Sabbath: I agree with YHVH killing the man who rebelled against God's command.}

All I can say is I hope you are never put in a position of authority over the lives of innocents. This is actually pretty shocking in the 21st century.

4. {Misogyny: Plural marriages and male authority does not mean misogyny. Though I understand that our society has demonized these practices. }

I have zero issue with consensual plural marriages, they harm no one and it a lifestyle choice. But you know very well that women were treated as chattel or property to be traded. This was not unique to Judaism, but remember, we are talking about the Torah. You might find a couple of verses that seem to minimize this, but it can definitely be used to support it in other places, so they do not cancel each other out like some math problem. You see treating a person like a second class citizen because of their gender is causing harm just to let you know that I am being consistent in my criticism.

5. {Talking snakes and donkeys: I believe this can happen}

I think you might be able to get a prescription for this.

Here is a link to more information about antipsychotic medicines. Antipsychotic Medications - Mental Health Center: Medical Information on Mental Illness

On a more serious note, of course you have to believe this. Otherwise, it all starts to unravel.

That is all I have time for right now, but this conversation is good. You are not only helping yourself, but everyone else who reads this thread as their jaws drop to the floor like mine did when you agreed that killing a person for picking up sticks was justified.

Just be true to yourself. It may take years to flower, but my seeds of doubt should take root eventually.

Not to mention, Serpents have no larynx or vocal cords.

*

 

[Kolibri]

Not to mention, Serpents have no larynx or vocal cords.

*

good argument that there was a ventriloquist present.