With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

While I am delighted to let you try to pin me down with bible contradictions, I have to question the motive. I don't know where this comes from. I have never heard a Jew say there are no contradictions and the bible does not internally say there are no contradictions. I have simply found, in my study, that there don't seem to be contradictions. I would certainly not venture to say there are absolutely none - because Jesus himself pointed one out.

Nevertheless - fire away.
 
David F. said:
A verse please? Where does it say that man was made before the plants (a plantless earth)? Are you refering to Gen 2:7 which says man was made out of the dust of the earth (nothing is said about there being no plants).
The verse speaks for itself
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.
You may also wish to educate us as to who the apostols are... bu name please.
 
Persol said:
The verse speaks for itselfYou may also wish to educate us as to who the apostols are... by name please.

The verse speaks for itself? I don't get your point. The verse you quote says that before there were plants and before there was a man, God made a mist to come and water the earth. How does this say man was created before the plants? BTW You pulled that last sentance out of the next thought/paragraph (there are no paragraphs in Hebrew - only a continuous stream of characters - the reader must decide for themselves where to make the breaks).

There were two major languages in the middle east at the time of Jesus, Aramaic and Greek. Greek was the common tongue of the whole Roman world (mostly because of the conquest of the world by the Macedonean conqueror Alexander the Great three centuries earlier). As a result, it was common for everyone in the Middle East to have a Greek name and a Hebrew/Aramaic name. For instance, Jesus is Greek while Yeshua is Hebrew/Aramaic. Peter is Greek while Cephas is Hebrew/Aramaic (We don't have all the Hebrew names).

The Apostles:

Hebrew --- Greek

Cephas --- (Simon) Peter
Andreas --- Andrew
Yacob --- James son of Zebedaiou
Yohannan --- John son of Zebedaiou
Filip --- Philippous
Nathanael --- Bartholomaios
n/a --- Thomas
n/a --- Matthaios
Yacob --- Jakobos {James) son of Alphaiou
Yudah --- Lebbeus Thaddios*
Simeon --- Simon (the Caananite)
Yudah --- Judas Iscariot

*In Matthew we are given his Greek name Lebbaeus Thaddaeus while in Luke we are given his Hebrew name Judah son of James (or actually Yudah bar Yacob).

Is there anything else I can read to you?
 
Last edited:
David F. said:
SouthStar, like it or not, the killing of the Caananites was necessary. We didn't know why until 19th century archeology. As it turns out, the land of Caanan was riddled with incurable (at least at that time) venerial disease. The plauge was even rampant in the animals (how exactly did it get there, yuck). The virgins were probably the only ones not infected (there was so much pedifilia that even the young boys were infected). The Israeli soldiers were given the <i>option</i> of sparing the virgins. They did not just rape the young girls though. They were told to bring the girls home with them but not touch them. They then had to shave every hair off of their bodies and trim their nails (to make sure there was no disease anywhere on their bodies) and then they had to wait for a month. Only then, if the soldier still wanted to, did they marry the girl. I suppose they could have just left the young girls to starve to death, but that doesn't seem too humane, now does it.


Now you wouldn't mind providing a reference for that load of information you just fed me, would you? I presumed not.

Numbers 31
10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [1]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


Of course we can see from the context that you are being extremely dense. Moses did not give them any "option", he was furious at the Hebrew warriors for allowing the women to live, blaming them in a gross generalization for something they did not do. Remember, not only did he blame the women, but he ordered the genocide of boys as well, reminding his warriors to save the girls for themselves. Now I don't know if you are trying to be stupid, but I have never heard of a women with a venereal disease taken captive for the end these warriors were seeking. But then I challenge you once again to show me your reference for that information.

Now ordering the mass murder of mere boys, and taking women as concubines, that doesn't sound too humane, now does it? Did I mention they also made slaves of the remnant? I am sure that was the humane thing to do for someone like you who thinks this atrocity was "necessary".
 
David F. said:
Oh, the slaughter of innocents was a reference to Herod's slaughter of the baby boys in Bethleham...

First, there is no outside reference, outside the bible, to this event. Second, in a small town like Bethleham - probably around 500 people - how many baby boys under 2 years old would there be - 5 or maybe as many as ten? Considering the cruel time they lived in, under Roman rule, when life was not very precious, it does not seem unduly surprising that the death of less than a dozen babies would cause any stir (after all we kill 1.5 million babies a year in abortion clinics). It would certainly be awful to the parents, but not really to anyone else. How is this an error in the bible?

Can you give any reliable population figures of Bethlehem at the time in order to give weight to your claim?
 
DAVID F: this is all the times your god, has been callous and cruel, according to your bible. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

david f said:
like it or not, the killing of the Caananites was necessary. We didn't know why until 19th century archeology. As it turns out, the land of Caanan was riddled with incurable (at least at that time) venerial disease. The plauge was even rampant in the animals (how exactly did it get there, yuck). The virgins were probably the only ones not infected (there was so much pedifilia that even the young boys were infected). The Israeli soldiers were given the option of sparing the virgins. They did not just rape the young girls though. They were told to bring the girls home with them but not touch them. They then had to shave every hair off of their bodies and trim their nails (to make sure there was no disease anywhere on their bodies) and then they had to wait for a month. Only then, if the soldier still wanted to, did they marry the girl. I suppose they could have just left the young girls to starve to death, but that doesn't seem too humane, now does it.
please provide source and referance material for the above claim, thank you.
I cannot find anything to verify your claim.
if your say a fetus is a baby, then so is a sperm, an ameoba, etc.
and remember everytime someone jerks off, their life clock moves one second, but I bet you could use yours, as a fan.
 
Hmmn interesting,does a sperm go to heaven?
Seeing as only one in a million makes it i guess the other 999,999 go to heaven or hell.

If we re-wind the tape and choose a different sperm to go into the egg,its a valid assertion that when the babys born it will be different from that which it would/could have been if they other one made it.

I think we are here by chance and we die with certainty,im only here cos that one sperm burrowed its way in the egg,if another sperm got in id not exist.

Id be a different person,ergo not ME,i have a brother,hes not me i can tell you that for certain,yet he came from the same sperm and egg essentially.

Rewinding the tape to the sperm would tell me that the sperm is the soul carrier,so what happens to the sperm who dont survive?
they go to hell,hell is now one big sperm bank with loads of little sperm all chained up and being tortured by satan.
 
One thing that i have observed again and again is people using the actions of God or people in the Bible to argue the non-existence of God..

I really don't understand how anyone can use the "God is a *&##@, so therefore God does not exist" position. The nature of God has absolutely no bearing on the existence of God.

So why do people continue to bring up the recorded massacres ordered by God in the bible as justification of their disbelief in His existence???

All Praise The Ancient Of Days.
 
You see, many people say that god is kind and loving and all that, and the bible is the word of god and such stuff.

Then it seems a bit contradictory that god kills thousands of people on a whim, and behaving like a total asshole. Add some very discriminating and brutal laws to that and the result is that god is not kind and loving. So the concept of a kind and loving god is debunked and can be a justification for the disbelief in said god.
 
As for abortion:

Using pure scientific logic and human rights we know that a unique human life starts when the chromosomes of the male sperm and the female egg unite to create a unique DNA sequence.

So therefore that unique Human life form has a right to a shot at a full life and should not have that possibility taken away.

I hear a lot of people talking about the rights of a woman over her own body. But what is aborted is Not Her Body at all. is it? The focus of that butchering is the genetically unique human life that is within the woman.


I could use all the argument under the sun scientific moral and others but basically murderers who murder for convenience will continue to do so as long as the worldly powers see it as convenient to allow it.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Not to mention the said God, curiously enough, has but human traits. Moreover, these traits (like jealousy, hatred) are the same ones He would rather us not have. What a role model!
 
Dreamwalker said:
You see, many people say that god is kind and loving and all that, and the bible is the word of god and such stuff.

Then it seems a bit contradictory that god kills thousands of people on a whim, and behaving like a total asshole. Add some very discriminating and brutal laws to that and the result is that god is not kind and loving. So the concept of a kind and loving god is debunked and can be a justification for the disbelief in said god.

Ahhh but the God of Abraham is the God of The Bible isn't He? So therefore what God are you rejecting? One described to you by others ? Or are you rejecting the possibility of the God of Abraham existing because He does not conform to your view of what a God should be?

What if the God of the bible was like a fairy god mother with a magic wand going around making everyone’s wishes come true turning this world into a paradise? would that make that god true? would that make that god exist? Of course not... It would have no bearing on the existence or otherwise of the fairy god mother.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
§outh§tar said:
Not to mention the said God, curiously enough, has but human traits. Moreover, these traits (like jealousy, hatred) are the same ones He would rather us not have. What a role model!

Once again southstar what has that got to do with Gods existence? You may say i hate the God of Abraham because of this this and this but you cannot say the God of Abraham does not exist because i do not like how He operates.

All praise The Ancient Of Days
 
What on earth did anything in my statement have to do with God's existence or nonexistence. I was only giving my observation. Sheesh!
 
Adstar said:
Ahhh but the God of Abraham is the God of The Bible isn't He? So therefore what God are you rejecting? One described to you by others ? Or are you rejecting the possibility of the God of Abraham existing because He does not conform to your view of what a God should be?

What if the God of the bible was like a fairy god mother with a magic wand going around making everyone’s wishes come true turning this world into a paradise? would that make that god true? would that make that god exist? Of course not... It would have no bearing on the existence or otherwise of the fairy god mother.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I do not reject any gods, I do not care about them. If they have a tremendeous need of my worship I am sure they will give me a call, otherwise I will just go on living life my way. I have no specific view of how a god should be, nor do I say that no god(s) exists. But I do not need a god, so I do not take up worshipping some deity or another.
 
Adstar wrote:
All praise The Ancient Of Days

I have seen others use this phrase and other than all sorts of usages in google, I was wondering what it means to you personally.
 
§outh§tar said:
Now you wouldn't mind providing a reference for that load of information you just fed me, would you? I presumed not.

Numbers 31
10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [1]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Of course we can see from the context that you are being extremely dense. Moses did not give them any "option", he was furious at the Hebrew warriors for allowing the women to live, blaming them in a gross generalization for something they did not do. Remember, not only did he blame the women, but he ordered the genocide of boys as well, reminding his warriors to save the girls for themselves. Now I don't know if you are trying to be stupid, but I have never heard of a women with a venereal disease taken captive for the end these warriors were seeking. But then I challenge you once again to show me your reference for that information.

Now ordering the mass murder of mere boys, and taking women as concubines, that doesn't sound too humane, now does it? Did I mention they also made slaves of the remnant? I am sure that was the humane thing to do for someone like you who thinks this atrocity was "necessary".

I am beginning to understand why you fell from the faith. You have almost no understanding of what you are reading.

First, the Midianites were not part of the Canaanites - they were actually of the descendants of Abraham. The Midianites/Moabites lived in the Western Arabian pennensula, not in Canaan. The Midianites and the Moabites tried to seduce the Israelites into worshipping their gods and leave Jehovah. They didn't think they could defeat them militarily so they did this by sending all their most beautiful women into the Israelite camp and starting an orgy (whordom with the daughters of Moab) - and in doing so they started a plauge. From Numbers 25, it is obvious that the plauge was sexually transmitted and the Israelites even killed their own men who had particpated in the orgy - they had become infected. They were trying very hard to control the plauge of venereal disease. Is it any wonder they only kept the virgins?

Second, when the bible uses the word "woman" it usually means non-virgin/married. If the bible means virgin, it uses damsel or maid (or occasionally it actually uses the word for virgin). There are times when the Hebrew word "isha" is used which just means female. The KJV translators had to take their best guess on this one (fortunately in the case of Num 31:15-18 you don't have to guess because the verse clearly says to kill all the non-virgins). The Isrealite solders were allowed, if they desired, to take concubines. The "option" comes from Num 31:18-35 & Deut 21:10-13. God knew which towns needed to be totally destroyed with even their animals (to control the plauge), and which could be set right with less than total destruction - which is why God told Joshua to completely burn some towns (like Jericho and Hatsor), but in other towns they only killed the men, or something in between.

We have a much better handle on disease than they had 3500 years ago at the time of the Exodus. Even now, with a severe outbreak, we must resort to the old tactics of quarintine. However, Moses (actually God) was faced with a massive outbreak on an entire regional scale. How can you quarintine everyone (even the cattle) from hundreds of towns and villiages? I understand why God had the Israelites simply wipe them out, I'm just glad I didn't have to be one of the soldiers. It would have been an awful job.

REFERENCES:
It is a very simple thing to find this information using Google, but I will nevertheless help you find it. You wanted an archeological reference - start with the Phoenician historian Philo Byblos. Most historians could not believe his accounts. They were so lurid and horrendous and extremely corrupt that the historians simply could not comprehend that any such society could exist. However, more recent archeological digs have uncovered Canaanite libraries (Ugarit) which show the situation was even worse than Philo described.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Philo of Byblos

or this one (which I quote from) http://www.theology.edu/canaan.htm
Philo of Byblos
The main source of knowledge about Canaanite religion before the new sources became available after 1930 (primarily the Ugaritic materials) was Philo of Byblos, the Greek name of ancient Gebal on the Mediterranean (Josh. 13:5, 1 Kings 5:18), forty-two miles north of Sidon. Philo lived around 100 AD. He was a native Phoenician scholar and gathered data for a historical work called Phoenikika or "Phoenician Matters", designated "Phoenician History" by later Greek scholars. According to Porphery and Eusebius, Philo translated the writings of an earlie Phoenician named Sanchuniathon, who was supposed to have lived at a very remote age, whom W. F. Albright placed between 700 and 500 BC. Sanchuniathon in turn supposedly got his material from one Hierombalus under Abibal, king of Berytus, who is said to have flourished before the Trojan War.​

or how about this one http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/biblio3.html

Attridge, Harold W. and Oden, Robert A., Jr. Philo of Byblos, The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 9, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.
An English translation facing the original Greek, with extensive notes, of all that remains of the works of Philo of Byblos about the Phoenician myths, extracted from writings of early Christian authors, primarily Eusebius. Scholars long considered Philo's work to be of dubious value. The discoveries at Ugarit have raised him in their estimation, as they verify much of what Philo said. His work is definitely Hellenized, and includes a Phoenician creation myth, which is missing from Ugarit.​

Most sites avoid the actual texts of Philo or the library of Ugarit, since they would quite literally be considered pornographic.

Here are some more (I don't vouch for everything these sites say, so just read the parts about Canaan):

http://www.pbc.org/old-pbc1/dp/roper/kings/3064.html
http://www.british-israel.ca/Canaanites.htm
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html
 
Last edited:
§outh§tar said:
Can you give any reliable population figures of Bethlehem at the time in order to give weight to your claim?
There are no population figures, but you can go see the old town for yourself even today. It is a small town outside Jerusalem. I actually think I am being generous by using a population of 500 - it is probably more likely to be 100-200. Let's say though that you wan't to up the population to a thousand, which would be a large sized town of that time (you're starting to get into the wall-city size, which we can clearly see that Bethlehem was not). The numbers are still small (10-20 baby boys). My point is not that this was not a tradgedy but that it was not large enough to expect it to be recorded (it is even astonishing that the bible recorded it - which may be why it is only in Matthew).
 
Adstar said:
As for abortion:

Using pure scientific logic and human rights we know that a unique human life starts when the chromosomes of the male sperm and the female egg unite to create a unique DNA sequence.

So therefore that unique Human life form has a right to a shot at a full life and should not have that possibility taken away.

I hear a lot of people talking about the rights of a woman over her own body. But what is aborted is Not Her Body at all. is it? The focus of that butchering is the genetically unique human life that is within the woman.


I could use all the argument under the sun scientific moral and others but basically murderers who murder for convenience will continue to do so as long as the worldly powers see it as convenient to allow it.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Good Post.

May I add that we do not allow women to do just anything they want to their bodies. They are not allowed cut off a limb. They are not allowed to put banned drugs into their bodies (if they do this when they are pregnant they can even be charged with child abuse or child endangerment!) It is ridiculous to make claims like "my body, my choice" No, it is not your choice. There are some things you are not allowed to do to your body.
 
Back
Top