Sacrilege!!!

What if...

2011-11-05T09:51:00.002+08:00

To all Christians out there: You say that Satan is the greatest deceiver of all to the point that you will even insist that atheists like me were deceived by Satan that is why I "deny" God's existence ( based on 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

But as a greatest of deceivers, is it possible that Satan most likely used something to bring more souls into hell than be contented to a merely 1% of the world's population? Mas marami di hamak ang Kristiano sa mundo (about 3 billion compare to us atheists.). Hindi kaya ang Bible eh ang kasangkapan ni Satan sa panloloko sa tao?

Now what if the greatest deceiver's tool in deceiving the world is no other than the Bible itself?

Dazed and Confused

2010-09-11T16:45:00.000+08:00

Trivia lang guys.

Do you know that the Christian Bible has many contradictions. WHAT? You don't believe me? Why not read it yourself. Here are few samples:

Rom.3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

1Kgs. 8:46 "...for there is no man that sinneth not,...."

(2Chr. 6:36)

Prov.20:9 "Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?"

Eccl. 7:23 "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

Mark 10:18 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Rom. 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."

(Also 1 John 1:8 & 10, Rom. 3:12, 5:12, Gal. 3:22)

Versus

Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job 1:8 "...my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 2:3)

Gen. 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

Luke 1:5-6 "In the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abia: andhe had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.(RSV)

Num. 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

1Sam. 15:29 "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent."

Versus

Jonah 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

1Sam.15:11 "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king...."

Exod. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Psalms.42:10 "... for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you."

Gen. 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

1Sam. 15:35 "...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."

Now, itanong mo sa pari, sa pastor,sa ministro, sa Jakono o kahit itanong mo kay Soriano, and they'll give you different answers na para kang nag take a still in a defective Merry-Go-Round.

Maybe that's what Christian meant when they say that when you read the Bible, you're under the spirit.

CHAO!

Biblical Morality

2010-09-06T18:52:00.002+08:00

I was intrigued by the quote that I saw in the Internet, something that was said by a certain T.B. Wakeman “The word moral does not occur in the Bible, not even the idea.”

What? How can that be?

I grew up as a Christian and believed that the Bible was the foundation of morality…well…I thought it was, but hey, we can find the Ten Commandments in its pages, right? There is also this Jesus fellow who taught me to be good. That can be counted, right?

Since the Bible was inspired by God and every Christians know that God is good they blame the decay of society and the lost of moral values as the result of the decline in Bible reading and the lack of God belief. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Left Behind series and one of the founders of Moral Majority agrees and said, “…since moral conditions have become worse and worse in direct proportion to humanism’s influence, which has move our country from a biblically based society to an amoral “democratic” society. “

Ok…so let us talk about morality base in the Bible.

Since Christians all agree that God inspired the Bible, let us look at God’s morality first.

According to Christian claims, God is suppose to be a god of love (1 John 4:16; Psalms 145:15-16 and Matthew 5:9), a righteous judge (Genesis 18:25), fair (Ezekiel 18:25) and impartial (Roman 2:11).

However, reading the Bible will also give us a different personality.

1.) That this God is a jealous god.

A perfect, omnipotent being getting jealous?

Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Deuteronomy 4: 24, 5:9, Psalms 79:5, 78:58, Joshua 24: 19, Ezekiel 16:38, 38:19, Zechariah 8:2 and Nahum 1:2

2.) He orders plunder.

Exodus 3:22, Deuteronomy 20:14 and Ezekiel 39:10

3.) He deceives.

"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived...." (Jer. 20:7).

"if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel" (Ezek. 14:9).

"Ah, Lord God! Surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reaches unto the soul" (Jer. 4:10).

"...God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:9-12).

2Chron. 18:18-22, 1 Kings 22:20-23 and Jer. 15:18.

4.) He command killing (even innocent women and children).

"ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put 10,000 to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword" (Lev. 26:7-8).

"the Lord said to Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel. Slay every one his men that were joined to Baal" (Num. 25:4-5).

"Vex the Midianites and smite them" (Num. 25:17).

"But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes. But thou shalt utterly destroy them...as the Lord thy God has commanded thee" (Deut. 20:16-17).

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills...he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded" (Joshua 10:40).

"As I listened, god said to the others, 'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children...." (Ezek. 9:5-6).

So I guess Thomas Jefferson was right about God when he said, “A being of terrific character – cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.” In addition, Thomas Paine was correct when he said, “All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes."

Reflecting from Xenophanes’ quote…if an ancient culture creates a god, it will reflect their standard of morality, the same on how horses and lions will create their gods.

Now let us talk about God’s only begotten son Jesus.

Many people, and unfortunately even some freethinkers and agnostics, think that Jesus was a great teacher. People like Thomas Paine calls Jesus as such and Robert Ingersoll who was very impress with the so-called “Sermon on the Mount”.

When I was still a Christian, I also thought that this Man-God excel not only as a teacher but also in regards to ethics. I was 12-years old at that time.

Bible believers say that Jesus’ morality is at its best in the Sermon in the Mount (AKA the Beatitudes). You can see it in Matthew 5:3-11. Well they may be admirable, but it has little value as a moral code. The Beatitudes are unrealistic. If we take away most of its supernatural rewards, what is left are a bunch of Consuelo de bobo (hollow consolations).

The reason behind this is obvious. Jesus is teaching ethics base on the promise of divine rewards and treats of supernatural punishments. He does not teach by the content of his moral code but on his conception of himself and his divinely appointed mission.

How about Jesus’ other moral precepts?

Most of his teachings we re-hashed from other teachers and some were lift from the pages of the Old Testament. The Golden Rule for example was advocated by Confucius (Doctrine of Mean 13) 500 years before Jesus and you can also find it in the Seven Rules of Hillel.

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor that is the whole Torah ... (b.Shabbat 31a)

Isocrates (436–338 BCE), the ancient Greek rhetorician have also said ,"Do not do to others what would anger you if gone to you by others.”

Matthew 5:39 can also be found in Leviticus 19:18 and in the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu

I am good to people who are good.

I am also good to people who are not good.

Because Virtue is goodness.

I have faith in people who are faithful.

I also have faith in people who are not faithful.

Because Virtue is faithfulness (Tao Te Ching 49)

In addition, the same teaching is seen in Confucianism, the Buddhist’s Dhammapada and at the Indian Ramayana.

Someone said, "What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?" The Master said, "With what will you then recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness." (Confucianism. Analects 14.36)

Conquer the angry one by not getting angry (i.e., by loving-kindness); conquer the wicked by goodness; conquer the stingy by generosity, and the liar by speaking the truth. (Dhammapada 223)

A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them--for who is without fault? (Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda 115)

Christian apologist Norman Giesler insisted that Jesus ethics is an ethics of love, but American author Ruth Hurmence Green disagrees – “They told me the Bible was a book about love, but I studied every page of that Bible, and I couldn’t find enough love to fill a salt shaker.”

There are other Bible stories that saturated with obscenities, degeneracy and immorality. Some have questionable moral values and others even promote profanity and corruption.

Here are some samples:

Genesis 19:8

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

2 Samuel 13:11-14

11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, "Come to bed with me, my sister."

12 "Don't, my brother!" she said to him. "Don't force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don't do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you." 14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

Genesis 34 The defilement of Danah

Genesis 38 The narratives of Judah, Omar and Tamar

Genesis 30: 14-16

14 During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes."

15 But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?"

"Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes."

16 So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. "You must sleep with me," she said. "I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he slept with her that night.

Genesis 30: 3-6

3 Then she said, "Here is Bilhah, my maidservant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that through her I too can build a family."

4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, 5 and she became pregnant and bore him a son. 6 Then Rachel said, "God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son." Because of this she named him Dan.

Genesis 16 The story of Abraham and Sarah and the illicit intimacy with Hagar.

Genesis 30: 25-43 Jacob’s trick Laban.

[Visit The Bible Unmasked for more examples.]

When confronted by these issues, Christian apologists like William Arndt say, “When it speaks of sin, it describes it in its ugliness, so that disgust and horror enters the heart of the readers. Not once for a moment, does it leave the high moral level of stern opposition to unrighteousness in all its form.”

What moral value? Ah OK…Peter called Lot a “righteous man” (2 Peter 2:7) even when Lot was giving his daughter to be rape by a mob. What moral value does it show…that giving your daughter to be rape is a good thing to do…I don’t think so?

There are countries out there that did not even heard of this Christian Bible and there are those who do not care about it, yet they even have a higher moral value compare to Bible-believing western nations. Japan for example – where honesty and honor are of the highest value, deems the Bible as 重要ではない. Most countries in Asia values cleanliness, respect to the elders and reverence to their parents yet they knew nothing of Yahweh, nor Moses, Jesus and Paul yet compare to the most pious Christian nation, their place are not riddled with crime, vices and corruption.

Ironic isn’t it?

Hotdog!!!!

2010-09-04T09:38:00.000+08:00

Ezekiel 23:20
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emissions has like that of horses." (NIV)

Comment : And you call the Bible a moralist's handbook? I never knew those Egyptians are that "hung".
Oh come on!
Jumbo hotdog! Kaya mo ba 'to! Talk about a moral book ala Xerex.
Hahaha!

John the Atheist

Flat-Chested Girls?

2010-09-03T09:12:00.000+08:00

So what's wrong with flat chested girls huh?

Song of Songs 8:8 We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?

The Most Advanced Ancient Book of All Time?

2010-07-24T17:43:00.005+08:00

According to Christians...the Bible is advance...advance in what????

Let's look at their claims:

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in…” (Isaiah 40:22)

And again…

(Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.” (NASB)

Now is the Earth a dome?

In Isaiah 40:22 for example, the word “circle” doesn’t mean a spherical Earth. The word “chug” refers to a circle…a flat circle. Notice the word “tent” or “dome” in those verses. As specified in Amos 9:6, this vaulted dome or “raki’a” (See: Genesis 1:6-8) is what the ancient Hebrew believe to cover the entire world. It is said that this solid vault or dome held the Sun, the moon and the stars (Gen.1:14-19; Psalms 19:4, 6) and it also provided the boundaries to the divine (Job 22:14 and Proverbs 8:27)

It also separated the water “above” from the water “below”. In fact according to these ancient Hebrews the blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters above the dome. This solid dome has windows and trap doors in which it release the rain and snow when opened (Gen. 7:11, Isa. 24: 18 and Mal. 3:10)

According to rabbinic traditions, in Nachmanides Commentary on Torah (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman 1194-1270) “Let the expanses become fixed; for although the heavens were created on the first day, they were still in fluid form, and they become solidified only on the second day when the Divine said "Yehee Raqiyaa." (Also see: Nachmanides (Raban), Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, pp. 33, 36.)

This is clearly not scientific foreknowledge.

Now here's something real funny.

According from a certain site owned by a certain Eliseo Soriano...the Bible have the forknowledge regarding the use of crying. Now can that only be found in the pages of the Bible? My papaya naman! It is ancient folk wisdom that crying is good for our health. It isn't new. Practitioner's of folk wisdom have routinely encouraged people to allow themselves to cry comforting the suffering soul that ' a good cry will help you feel better'.

For example:

The ancient Hawaiians assert there are two chemical reactions within the human body that can accomplish Reconnection with Source Oneness. The first is the "sacred tear” beneath our sadness and hopelessness. Beneath that tear lies the second chemical reaction, said to be more powerful than all the healing agents known to humankind. It comes "out of the blue" with the power of a jackhammer, shattering the seriousness of the entire human estate. A power instantly freeing and balancing to all the body's chemistry. This is the power of laughter. When it comes in this manner, it comes through the "na'au" (gut level) and will pierce the hopelessness of any situation or attitude. It is not a power to be taken lightly, for the ancient Hawaiians say it holds the chemistry of immortality and will instantly heal any terminal disease. It’s said to be the "laughter of God" which shatters the ridiculousness of hopelessness.

Let's talk about history:

One of the best weapons used by Christians to confirm the Bible story is Hezekiah's Tunnel. According to them the discovery of the tunnel built by King Hezekiah authenticates the passages written in the book of Kings. 2 Kings 20:20 states that Hezekiah, "Made the Pool and the conduit and brought water into the city" and in 2 Chronicles 32:30 that he closed the upper outlet of the waters of Gihon and directed them down to the West side of the City of David. This refers to the tunnel which connects the ‘Spring of Gihon’, through the rock to the reservoir called the Pool of Siloam.

"And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?" 2 Kings 20:20

"And when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come, and that he was purposed to fight against Jerusalem, He took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city: and they did help him. So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?" 2 Chronicles 32:2-4

"This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works." 2 Chronicles 32:30

It was discovered in 1838 when it was explored by the American traveller, Edward Robinson, and his missionary friend Eli Smith.

Let me get this straight, just because something was discovered by archeologists means the whole Bible is literally true. Let me share to you this quote:

In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we’re learning history is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special attention to what is going on in the Bible.

Christians are well delighted when archeological proof confirms parts of their beliefs. However, since parts of the Bible are historically true still does not make that the rest of the Bible is true as well. The Bible is still not an accurate history book. It tells about some stories about people and events that might happen in the past and were confirmed by archeologists, but still, the fact of the matter, the Bible should not be in use as historical actuality and that the stories in the Bible are NOT metaphors from which facts can be dig out by the reader.

So let us talk about the tunnel, According to Bible scholars, the book of Kings and Chronicles was written possibly between 450 and 435 BCE. There are even some suggestions that these books were written hundred of years after the events took place (See: I Chronicles 9:1-3). The said tunnel was already been constructed before 701 BCE during the reign of Hezekiah. That means the tunnel already existed when both books were being wrote. Obviously the story was already known by the writers and they just incorporated it on their narratives.

I can think of a lot of historical facts that were incorporated in fiction. For example Cold Mountain by Fraszier is historically accurate as to the civil war events but the tale is fiction. There are others like Les Miserables, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Noli Me Tagere and Florante and Laura. The settings are facts but don't tell me Crisostomo Ibarra and Maria Clara are real persons.

Until next time,

Ciao!

The Bible in a Skeptic’s Eye (Part 2)

2010-07-24T17:11:00.003+08:00

In our continuing series, we will now look on the development of the New Testament Cannon.

According to most Bible scholars we have a better idea on how the New Testament took shape. Edgar Johnson Goodspeed (1871-1962) theorized that the surviving Pauline letters were first collected after the publication of the Books of Acts, about 95 CE and the Epistle of the Ephesians was compiled as an encyclical or “covering letter” to head this collection, being paraphrased from several of the authentic letter. This theory was widely accepted among New Testament scholars.

Basing on this theory, the original nucleus of the New Testament was the epistle of Paul, to which was added the “catholic” epistles written by James, Peter, John and Jude and the Pastoral Epistle, a supplement to the Pauline collection dating from 100 -105 CE. The Gospel was added later…they were gathered together into a “four fold evangel” about 150 CE. The whole New Testament was known as the Evangelion (Evangel) and the Apostolos (Apostle).

The first generation of the Church fathers such as Ignatius (35-107), Papias (60-130) and Justin (100-165) were more concern with the Old Testament compare to the New Testament. In fact, a definitive list of the canonical book for the New Testament came from a heretic named Marcion (d. 160).

Marcion, a shipping magnate in the Black Sea port of Sinope, traveled to Rome in about 139CE. He taught that many of the Christian literature were corrupted by Jewish ideas and that the Jewish God of the Old Testament was strict and had condemned all humanity. According to Marcion, Jesus Christ who was absolutely unrelated to the Jewish God will released Christians from this god’s clutches.

Marcion compiled only the letters of Paul (Galatians, I and ii Corithians, I and ii Thessalonians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians) and a “purified” version of Luke’s gospel. If it’s not for Marcion, the Christian Church never would have possessed a “New Testament”.

By 95CE, there are still evidence of apocryptic books being included in the New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus includes the book Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas. The Codex Alexandrinus contains the Epistle of Clement, which was said to be written by Clement, Bishop of Rome to the Corinthian church.

The Muratorian Fragment, discovered in Milan by L.A.Muratori and was published in 1740 – was said to be written in 200CE and have rejected most of the apocryptic book, yet it also rejected I and ii Peter, Hebrews, James and iii John. It also included the Apocalypse of Peter, a book that tells the story of how Peter was granted a vision of heaven and hell.

According to Papias (c 60-130) Bishop of Hierapolis, Mark got his information from Peter himself. Papias also said that the authority of the gospel of Matthew and Mark was base on a certain John the Presbyter.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) said that the earliest gospels were those with Jesus' family tree.

Irenaeus (c.130-200) Bishop of Lyons, gave the first historically documented list of the four gospels and its authors in 180CE. In all the many available gospels in that time, he chooses only 4 which according to him, “As there are four winds, there should be four Gospel.”

Irenaeus believed that Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in the book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who learned on his breast himself, produced his gospel when he was living in Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus was also the first to give a chronological sequence of the writing of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He also drew up a list of writing he considered as canonical. His list consist of 22 books which includes The Shepherd of Hermans but he left out Philemon, ii Peter, ii and iii of John, Hebrews, Jude and Revelations.

But even with Irenaeus’ list, Origen (185-254) who in 230 CE defined what he believed to be the cannon of the scripture for the New Testament included the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s 13 Epistles, I Peter, I John and Revelation. He also stated that the first gospel was written in Hebrew by Matthew.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) stated that Mark copied and abbreviated Matthew.

The truth in this matter is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source").

In the Festal Letter of Athanasius (c. 296-373) Bishop of Alexandria to the Egyptian Churches in 367 he said that there are only 27 books considered as canonical. Athanasius list was confirmed by a council under Pope Damasus.

Pope Damasus (304-384 CE) proclaimed the list of the canonical books in the New Testament which was identical to the modern Bible we have now in 374 CE. Over a period of time, at the Council of Laodicea (363) the bishop agreed to the list and his cannon was later been approved by the Council of Rome in 383 and was reconfirmed at the Council of Carthage in 393, 397, and 419 CE.

However, some churches disagreed. The Book of Revelation for example, was not considered divinely inspired until the 8th century. In the Codex Claromontanus, a 6th century manuscript, the Book of Hebrews was omitted while the Epistle of Barnabas was included and placed between the Epistle of Jude and the Book of Revelation.

Even today, some Christian church, with very old roots, has different set of New Testament books. The East-Syrian Nestoriam Church has cannon of only 22 books. The Ethiopian Church has 38 books which includes the Shepherd or Hermas, i and ii Clement and the Apostolic Constitution.

The Bible in a Skeptic’s Eye (Part 1)

2010-07-24T09:11:00.002+08:00

How can a document, tampered with by kings, tyrants, fools and scholars be the “true” and “inspired” word of God?

According to Christians, the Bible is the inspired word of God and for some it is even inerrant. However, looking at its history, we find that the book has been repeatedly revised and re-written.

Today, in this series, we are going to explore the history of this book.

We begin with the Old Testament.

There are no “autograph’s of the Old Testament that survived. The text we now possessed was transmitted to us by generation of scribes and there are ample evidence of how these scribes both wittingly and unwittingly altered the documents they were copying. There is no reason to suppose that the documents in our Old Testament, at least in the period before they regarded as sacrosanct, did not suffer from the usual type of scribal corruption.

The Old Testament was written during the course of more than one millennium, approximately in the period of 1200-100 BCE. Nine volumes from Genesis to Kings were written in 561 BCE in the time of the Jewish captivity and were edited about 400 BCE. The first five books were separated and canonized to become the written Torah, the four remaining were canonized (with an additional two) two centuries later.

In the development of Israel’s history, the Tanack gradually took form and reached completion in the late Persian period. The first move toward canonization can be seen in Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomist stated that their law was completed and that nothing can be added or removed (Deut. 4:2; 12:32) and that God made the law binding on all generation (Duet. 27:4-8). Scholars suggested that the Book of Deuteronomy was formed in the late 7th century BCE, a product of the religious reforms carried out under king Josiah, with later additions from the period after the fall of Judah to the Babylonian empire in 586 BCE.

The Book of the Law was found in the temple of Jerusalem and was ratified as a divine law of the land (2Kings 23:3)…well that was according to legend. M. L. de Wette suggested that King Josiah had Deuteronomy created as a type of "pious fraud" to further his agenda of religious reform. In that time, the study of the Law eventually becomes more vital than offering and sacrifices. Yahweh, the god introduced by the Jahwist writers (The Jahwist, also referred to as the Jehovist, Yahwist, or simply as J, is one of the four major sources of the Torah postulated by the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). It is the oldest source, whose narratives make up half of Genesis and the first half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers) becomes the creator of heaven and earth and the only god in existence.

The second step toward canonization was recorded in the Ezra tradition. During the festival, Ezra read publicly from “the Book of the Law” and instructed the people in the law (Neh. 7:73; 8:18).

The contents of the prophetic cannon appeared to be established between the forth and second centuries in two general groupings: The former Prophets and the Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets were recognized as a Deuteronomic history (Joshua, Judges, i-ii Samuel). The Book of Kings (1 and 2Kings) was written in 600 BCE.

The Hagiographa or Writings are an amorphous literary collection with an obscure history. The Psalms were attributed with King David. The wisdom writings were attributed primarily to Solomon.

The earliest mention of the collection of the Hagiographa were found in the prologue to Ben Sira’s word that he called “other books of our fathers”.

Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, most of our OT documents and actual manuscript evidence for the text of the OT was relatively late.

The Cairo Genizah for example was dated within the 7th and 6th century CE but some so-called “earliest” fragments were dated to the 9th and 10th century.

The Cambridge Codex XIII, a complete Old Testament was made in early as the middle of the 9th century. The Cairo Karaite manuscript of the Prophets may be of the late 9th century.

The Aleppo Sephardic Codex was dated in the early 10th century. The Pentateuch Codex (4445) that is now housed in the British Museum is also of the 10th century. The St. Petersberg Prophet Codex is dated 916 CE and the six manuscripts in the Firkowitsch collection at Leningrad belong to the 10th century. The Codex Urbinus 2, now in Vatican, which contains the whole Old Testament, is also dated to the 10th century. The famous Codex L from Old Cairo was dated 1008.

The earliest printed Hebrew scripture were just portions and was also printed in the late 15th century. Example, the Psalms at Bologna in 1477, the Pentateuch at Bologna in 1482, the Megilloth also in Bologna in 1482 and the Pentateuch in Faro in 1487.

The first complete Hebrew Bible to be printed was issued at Soncino in 1488, the second was on naples in 1492 to 1493 and the third at Brescia in 1492. The first great Rabbinic Bible was printed by Daniel Bomberg at Venice in 1516 to 1517. The text was prepared by Felix Pratensis. The second Rabbinic Bible was compiled by Jacob Ben Hayyim, a Masorah, in 1524-1525 at Venice. Paul Kahle edited the text of the 3rd edition of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgarst 1937) and used a purer Ben Asher text base on the Leninggrad manuscript.

Round and Round It Goes

2010-07-20T00:08:00.003+08:00

Dr. Bart Ehrman Sums it all up BIBLE NOT RELIABLE

2010-06-28T11:22:00.004+08:00

About the Sabbath

2010-05-16T11:19:00.001+08:00

Contrary to popular belief, the concept of Sabbath was not a Hebrew idea. The Babylonians have been the first to divide the lunar months into seven-day periods (each day being dedicated to one of the seven divine planets, or ‘wonderers’, heavenly bodies which are not fixed in the sky as the stars were). Each period ended with an “evil day”, when taboos were enforced so that. Once again, the gods would be propitiated. Cuneiform records show that the Babylonian shabbatum (‘full-moon day’) fell on the fourteenth or fifteenth of the month, and this seems to be the basis of the Hebrew term shabbath.

The Christians took over this practice.

Michael Shermer Decodes the Bible Code

2010-05-11T17:35:00.000+08:00

From the Skeptic's Dictionary

The Bible Code is the title of a book by Michael Drosnin in which he claims that there is a code embedded in the Bible by God. The code is revealed by searching for equidistant letter sequences (ELS). The code is called the Bible Code or the Torah Code. For example, start with any letter ("L") and read every nth letter ("N") thereafter in the book, not counting spaces. If an entire book such as Genesis is searched, the result is a long string of letters. Using different values for L and N, one can generate many strings of letters. Imagine wrapping the string of letters around a cylinder in such a way that all the letters can be displayed. Flatten the cylinder to reveal several rows with columns of equal length, except perhaps the last column, which might be shorter than all the rest. Now search for meaningful names in proximity to dates. Search horizontally, vertically, diagonally, any which way. A group of Israeli mathematicians did just this and claimed that when they searched for names in close proximity to birth or death dates (as published in the Encyclopedia of Great Men in Israel) they found many matches, for example, the date of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was in close proximity to letters spelling out his name. Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg (1994) published their findings under the title of "On Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis." The editor of the journal commented:

When the authors used a randomization test to see how rarely the patterns they found might arise by chance alone they obtained a highly significant result, with the probability p=0.000016. Our referees were baffled: their prior beliefs made them think the Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful references to modern-day individuals, yet when the authors carried out additional analyses and checks the effect persisted.

That is, the probability of getting the results they did was 16 out of one million or 1 out of 62,500. The authors state: "Randomization analysis shows that the effect is significant at the level of 0.00002 [and] the proximity of ELS's with related meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance." Harold Gans, a former cryptologist at the US Defense Department, replicated the work of the Israeli team and agreed with their conclusion. Witztum later claimed that, according to one measure, the probability of getting these results by chance is 1 in 4 million. He has apparently changed his mind and now claims that the probability p = 0.00000019 (1 out of 5.3 million).

As further evidence of the statistical significance of their results, the Israeli team analyzed the Hebrew version of the Book of Isaiah and the first 78,064 characters of a Hebrew translation of Tolstoy's War and Peace. They found many names in close proximity to birth or death dates, but the results were statistically insignificant. (The book of Genesis used in their study, the Koren version, has 78,064 characters.)

What does this all mean? To some it means that the patterns in Genesis are intentional and that God is the ultimate author of the code. If so, should the Book of Isaiah, and any other book in the Bible that fails the ELS test, be dumped? Should we conclude that these statistics verify the claim that the Jews are the chosen people of God, or that no more names should be added to list of Great Men in Israel unless they pass the ELS test? Unless other religions can duplicate such statistically improbable results, the mathematically minded supernaturalist might well consider them to be imposters. Should we translate all the sacred books of all the religions of the world into Hebrew and see how many great men of Israel are encoded there?

Can a computer really read the mind of God? Apparently. For on this theory God dictated in His favorite language, Hebrew, a set of words that are more or less intelligible if taken at face value, containing stories of creation, floods, fratricide, wars, miracles, and so on, with many moral messages. But this Hebrew God chose his words carefully, encoding the Bible with prophecies and messages of absolutely no religious value.

Many, however, are not at a loss at all. Some Christian "creation scientists" claim the Bible Code provides scientific proof of God's existence. If they are right, they should convert to Judaism. Doron Witztum can't do that, since he is already a Jew. But he has taken the work done on Genesis a bit further than his colleagues. Witztum went on Israeli television and claimed that the names of the sub-camps on a map of Auschwitz appeared remarkably close to the phrase "in Auschwitz." The odds of such occurring, he said, are "one in a million." Some of his students did the math and claim their mentor was off by "a factor of 289,149." Witztum's math may not be as good as his intentions, but it is difficult to see what those intentions might be. Was God revealing in an odd way that the sub-camps of Auschwitz are in Auschwitz?

Michael Drosnin has written a book based on the ELS study. He claims in The Bible Code (1997) that decoding the Bible leads to the discovery of prophecies and profound truths of a secular nature, not all of which are related to the Jews. Drosnin claims that the Bible is the only text in which these encoded phrases are found in a statistically significant pattern, and that the chance of this being a random phenomenon is unlikely. Using the ELS method, Drosnin claims that the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was foretold in the Bible. He also claims that the assassinations of Anwar Sadat and the Kennedy brothers are encoded in biblical ELS.

Not everybody agrees with the Drosnin hypothesis, including Harold Gans, a retired Defense Department cryptologist who corroborated the work of Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg. Gans says that the

...book states that the codes in the Torah can be used to predict future events. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no scientific or mathematical basis for such a statement, and the reasoning used to come to such a conclusion in the book is logically flawed. While it is true that some historical events have been shown to be encoded in the Book of Genesis in certain configurations, it is absolutely not true that every similar configuration of "encoded" words necessarily represents a potential historical event. In fact, quite the opposite is true: most such configurations will be quite random and are expected to occur in any text of sufficient length. Mr. Drosnin states that his "prediction" of the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin is "proof" that the "Bible Code" can be used to predict the future. A single success, regardless of how spectacular, or even several such "successful" predictions proves absolutely nothing unless the predictions are made and evaluated under carefully controlled conditions. Any respectable scientist knows that "anecdotal" evidence never proves anything.*

Dr. Eliyahu Rips, one of the authors of the study that started the Bible Code craze, has also made a public statement regarding Drosnin's Bible Code.

I do not support Mr. Drosnin's work on the Codes, nor the conclusions he derives....All attempts to extract messages from Torah codes, or to make predictions based on them, are futile and are of no value. This is not only my own opinion, but the opinion of every scientist who has been involved in serious Codes research.

Professor Menachem Cohen, a celebrated Bible scholar at Bar-Ilan University, has criticized Witztum et al. on two counts: (1) there are several other Hebrew versions of Genesis for which ELS does not produce statistically significant results; and (2) the appellations given to the Great Men in Israel was inconsistent and arbitrary. Other critics, such as Brendan McKay, have done their own analysis of War and Peace with remarkably different results than those reported by Witztum et al. Many critics, however, have done little more than use ELS to find names, dates, and so on in various books, a feat already known by even the weakest of statisticians to be unremarkable. Drosnin once said, "When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby-Dick, I'll believe them." McKay promptly produced an ELS analysis of Moby-Dick predicting not only Indira Ghandi's assassination, but the assassinations of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and Yitzhak Rabin, as well as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Mathematician David Thomas did an ELS on Genesis and found the words "code" and "bogus" close together not once but 60 times. What are the odds of that happening? Thomas also did an ELS analysis on Drosnin's Bible Code II: The Countdown (2002) and found the message "The Bible Code is a silly, dumb, fake, false, evil, nasty, dismal fraud and snake-oil hoax."* Does this mean that God put in a code to reveal that there is no code?

The Christian Delusion

2010-05-02T17:23:00.000+08:00

Review

"The contributors to this book have interesting, important, and controversial things to say to conservative Christians: It isn't true that modern society has Christian foundations; it isn't true that there is significant historical evidence for the Resurrection; it isn't true that scripture portrays a perfectly good God; it is untenable to suppose that the Bible is the Word of God; and there are many new challenges to the believability of Christianity in contemporary sciences: pyschology, sociology, cognitive science, archaeology, and the like. This book is a fitting successor to Loftus' book Why I Became an Atheist and merits a similarly broad readership." -- Dr. Graham Oppy, associate dean of research and associate dean of graduate studies in the faculty of arts at Monash University, author of Arguing About Gods (2006), and co-editor (with Nick Trakakis) of The History of Western Philosophy of Religion 5 vols. (2009)

"John Loftus and his distinguished colleagues have certainly produced one of the best and arguably the best critique of the Christian faith the world has ever known. Using sociological, biblical, scientific, historical, philosophical, theological and ethical criticisms, this book completely destroys Christianity. All but the most fanatical believers who read it should be moved to have profound doubts." --Dr. Michael Martin, professor of philosophy emeritus and author of The Case Against Christianity and Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

"If John Loftus never wrote anything else he will be remembered a century from now for his Outsider Test for Faith, which figures prominently in this book." --Frank Zindler, PhD, former president of American Atheists and editor of American Atheist Magazine.

"I'm quoted in this book as saying that treating the arguments of others fairly is simply an application of the Golden Rule. Christians regularly ask atheists to listen to their arguments and read their books. If a Christian wishes to return the favor, this volume offers atheist views on a range of subjects, presented respectfully (for the most part) yet with conviction. Christians who wish to critically examine and reflect on their beliefs will benefit from the outsider perspectives offered here. I join with its authors in encouraging you to dare to doubt. If you follow that courageous path, you may at times draw the wrong conclusions. If you do not, you will certainly be wrong at least as often." --James F. McGrath, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion and Clarence L. Goodwin Chair of New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, and author of The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context

"For nearly two thousand years apologists have striven mightily to show that the dogmas of Christianity are rationally defensible. For much of the Christian era critics have sought to debunk those apologetic claims. In that long tradition of criticism, there have been few works as effective as The Christian Delusion. The essays are incisive, rigorous, and original, shedding new light on old issues and boldly exploring new paths of argument. The selection of topics is outstanding--at once both comprehensive and innovative. For fresh insights into an old debate, The Christian Delusion is strongly recommended." --Keith Parsons, PhD, professor of philosophy, University of Houston, Clear Lake, and author of the book, God and the Burden of Proof.

"John Loftus is to be congratulated for assembling such a fine collection of papers from such a diversity of fields. This book is not simply an anthology of atheist thought, but a wide sweeping attack on the basis of Christianity. Using these various approaches, the authors subject Christianity to a rigorous critique: challenging it from the psychology of belief to the origins of morality, the historical Jesus, Christian exceptionalism, and claims of eternal truth despite the constant evolution of that religion. The end result is that Christianity is demonstrated to be just one of the many religions humans have invented for themselves." --James Linville, PhD, associate professor of religious studies, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge AB, Canada.

"The culture of Christianity has dominated the U.S., and to some extent the world, for so long that even the act of asking questions or raising doubts is scorned. But with Christian doctrine so far out of whack with scientific, moral, philosophical, and political realities, we cannot afford to leave it unanalyzed. When we do cast an objective and critical eye towards it, its ideas, arguments, and justifications unravel. The thinkers in this volume, who have the courage, the will, and the expertise to conduct that critical evaluation have made a valuable contribution to the sea change." --Matt McCormick, PhD, philosophy professor, California State University, Sacramento, CA

"John Loftus cut his Christian apologetic teeth at our seminary, and I believe that he has since exchanged them for a false set. Nevertheless, in this book he has prepared a buffet with other notable atheistic chefs that 'honest Christians' dare not ignore. Many will simply refuse the menu because of its perceived poisonous entrÃ©es. But Christians need to chew on what these cooks are serving, even though much may be hard to swallow or difficult to digest. I say, 'Let the banquet begin!'" --Rich Knopp, PhD, professor of philosophy & apologetics at Lincoln Christian University, Lincoln, Illinois

"The Christian Delusion is an incredibly powerful book that's a must-read for anyone who's ever had a doubt about God--believers and non-believers alike. I wish a book like this was around when I first had my doubts about Christianity. It would have saved me many years in getting to the truth." --William Lobdell, author of Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America--and Found Unexpected Peace

"This book systematically undermines the pillars of evangelical Christianity. It shows the arguments for the divine inspiration of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, a supernatural conversion experience, the necessity of the Bible for a proper system of ethics, etc. to be full of holes. It demonstrates that those who believe in the tenets of evangelical Christianity truly are deluded." --Ken Pulliam, PhD, who taught NT Greek, theology, and apologetics for nine years before becoming an agnostic

"The Christian Delusion is a comprehensive and representative presentation of contemporary skeptical thought. Anyone who wants to understand the position of contemporary free thinkers could not do much better than to read this book." --Matthew Flannagan, Christian philosopher and adjunct lecturer in philosophy for Laidlaw College and Bethlehem Tertiary Institute

In Praise of Biblical Illiteracy

2010-05-02T17:16:00.000+08:00

By Hector Avalos

Iowa State University

April 2010

Surveys repeatedly show that Christian populations, when left to their own devices, do not seem too interested in Bible reading unless convinced otherwise by their authorities. As it is, note the paradox of publishers citing inflated sales figures for Bibles as proof that the Bible matters, and religion professors complaining that few people are actually reading the Bibles being sold.

Click here for the rest of the article.

Genesis Folly ( Part 3: Unrevealed Revelation)

2010-01-28T16:37:00.004+08:00

Ok…as I have said in my other blog, this is a biblical topic and it is more appropriate to discuss it here.

Genesis (Written: 2009 December 30)

“Can you prove for certain that Christianity, the Bible is true?”

The answer to this question is, “Yes, Christianity can be absolutely be proven true.” This, does not mean that everyone will accept the evidence, no matter how much there is or convincing it is.

My first question is what evidence was Genesis talking about? Hey! Before I’ll accept your statement, maybe you should show me evidence first?

In our courts of law when a judge employs a jury, he or she tells them to decide based on probability, based on the evidence presented. It cannot be certainty since none have viewed the crime. If jury decisions were delayed until 100% certainty existed, no verdict could be rendered. Decisions are based on a combination of faith related to fact.

Speaking of jury…oh wait a minute, Philippine court don’t use “jury” so I guess Genesis copy-paste this article from another unknown American Christian apologetic site. Anyway, juries still base their decision on facts presented by lawyers. No jury in their right mind will decide a case base on faith. Probability on evidence still relies on evidence.

Anything we buy we trust the manufacturer in what he says for the guarantee. But God who is the creator of all some seem to trust less than man. But he has proven his record through prophecy unlike any other person or book written.

Is Genesis using prophecy as evidence that the Bible is true? What prophecy is she talking about?

Since Genesis didn’t gave us anything, I’ll just leave you these links from one of Farrell Till's article "PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED" and Jeffery Jay Lowder, ed., “The Jury is In: The Ruling on McDowell’s Evidence”.

Atheists have no right to disprove God by using the Bible. In the first place, the Bible has its own language and thought that Atheists would never understand as it was not meant for them, NEVER! No doubt that ATheists are strong believers of Science that they already forgot to learn ART. Bible has an art..the art to use powerful words and phrases in different figures of speech with definitions that need to be searched in other parts of it. Atheists task is to read a passage, and then readily assume based on their own thinking when in fact the Bible has its own. When Atheists read that Jesus was teaching the early followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood, they at an instance assumed that Jesus was promoting cannibalism, to think that in other verses Jesus and the apostles meant spiritual symbolism for the “flesh” and “blood”, and not the literal meaning of it. Atheists are not aware that the Bible, while it is a compilation of God’s laws, is also literature, history, etc.. that uses “figures of speech” just as an artistic poet would express his thoughts through words.

Obviously Genesis wants atheists like me to stay away from the Bible. Why? Is she trying to hide something in its pages?

Just like other ancient documents, the Bible is not immune from errors (or as what Christian apologist like to call them…difficulties) and sadly for Genesis, Bible criticism is a part of formal biblical studies.

Now, unlike what Genesis wanted to believe, the Bible speaks the same language as we do. Come on, if the Bible speak a different language, then why are Christian using it to established a universal morality? When God speak of love, the same meaning is applied when a father talks about “love”. So why will it be meaningless for an atheist like me? The Bible used the same way I understand the syntax of a sentence. It is not factually meaningless…grammatically speaking. The problem here is not the language as Genesis assumed but the clarification of its logic and the confusion caused by misusing the language.

Genesis claims that the Bible uses “figures of speech” or symbolism.

Said who?

When reading and understanding the Bible, we are face with two opposing Christian views: The evangelical and the Neo-evangelical. Since Genesis is obviously prefer the latter, let’s talk about it.

Neo-evangelicals believe that the Bible speak in a symbolic language…so therefore the truth in the Bible resides in the intention or purpose of the author and not in what he actually said.

Judging Genesis view, that means Jesus was in a way misleading us in Matthew 26:26-28 (see also Mark 14: 22-24 and 1 Cor. 11:23-25).

So if Genesis was right that the Bible is full of symbolism and artistic poetry, there where the symbolism ends and the factual part begins? When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, is it just symbolism? How about when Jesus walks on water or Moses parted the Red Sea, are they just symbolism? Maybe Genesis forgot what Jesus said in John 3:12.

In the issue concerning the Lord’s Supper, Genesis seems to accused atheists of saying Jesus was promoting cannibalism. Another symbolic eh?

For the Roman Catholics, every time the priest perform the Eucharist in their mass, they believe that the communion wafer and the wine miraculously transform into the flesh and blood of the Christ . According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

…that in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of the God-man are truly, really, and substantially present for the nourishment of our souls, by reason of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that in this change of substances the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament is also contained.

According to Catholic apologetics, the appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence of these realities, which can’t be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What starts as bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood. This is came to be called “transubstantiation.”

That’s not symbolic, is it?

And the atheists call it cannibalistic...hehehe...oh come on...

If you went to the Catholic apologetic site called “Catholic Bridge.com”, an article said that, “Some Evangelicals feel that the idea of eating Jesus is Cannibalistic.”

According to a certain Christian blog, "As far as Roman Catholicism is concerned, I maintain that it's outright cannibalism because of the literal way they interpret the Eucharist passages in the NT."

So that's it...it not always the atheists who accused the Lord's Supper as cannibalistic but other Christians as well.

Personally, I don't care if the Roman Catholics practice symbolic cannibalism.

Your reading and view of the Scriptures is like a pianist who reads a nineteenth century composition, plays it, and then telling the composer is wrong...and your little and superficial reading of the Bible has lead your minds to assume that you’ve really understood what you have read where if fact you do not. The Bible is not for you to use against those who believe in it as it has its own character and definition of thoughts. You take “the creation” to be literally in 6 days when the Bible is telling in other verses that the “day of the Lord IS LIKE a thousand years”.. to mean that a day to God means not a 24-hour period like we have here on earth but a “vast span of time”.. Besides, planets have different days.. one day on earth may mean hundred or thousand days on other planets-known and unknown to men.

Again another accusation (*sigh*). When Isaac Asimov says that, “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” He didn’t mean that atheist should read it like a piano composition – that’s why there are only few atheists out there that even bother to read it.

Poch Suzara once told me to throw my Bible out of the window. The late Madalyn Murray O’Hair also said that, “We need not direct our main assault against the Bible or the Koran.” (Indestructible Foundation of Atheism., September/October 1962.)

But there are those who find it necessary and believe me, it’s hard work. So why do some atheists like me do it? As Mr. Dennis McKinsey said it bluntly, “To just ignore the Bible or act as if it did not exist, borders on the absurd. The Book and its followers exercise an enormously negative influence on society.”

Also, as I reflect on the works of John Shelby Spong and Karen Armstrong, atheists like me are just giving religious people like Genesis a high standard of religion. Ignorance distorts our sense of value and intelligent development of religion is blocked when we maintain a certain air of religious exclusivism. Remember, doubt sometimes promotes certainly.

Now let us proceed.

Again, Genesis is blaming us atheists on the issue of the six days Creation. Gosh…it’s not an atheist concern @ Genesis. This is really about another conflicting Christian views between the Young Earth Creationists and the Day-Age Creationist (Old Earth Creationist). Young-Earth Creationists believe that the day in Genesis means 24-hour period. Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute of Creation Research believe in a 24-day period…He’s not an atheist, my gosh he’s the Founder and President Emeritus of ICR ! (read his articles here and here.)

Ok since Genesis seems to believe in the "Day-Age theory", I will discuss this further.

“Day-Age Theory” of Progressive Creation is the view that the “day” in Genesis is equal to a thousand years (See: Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8). It is just saying that God measures time differently that humans do…and of course…so the Genesis account will be analogous with scientific cosmology.

According to the Christian Reformed Church - The Back to God Hour (Is Genesis Believable Vol. 45 No. 9), interpreting the creation days as long periods of time is a force meaning that doesn’t fir the words of the Book of Genesis. The context of Genesis is different from Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. When “yom” (the Hebrew word for “day”) is connected with “evening and morning” it means an ordinary 24-hour period.

Ok so here's their issue:

(1) The word translated as "day" is "yom" in the Hebrew, which means a definite 24-hour period from sunset to sunset;

(2) Starting evening and then morning shows a 24-hour period was intended. This was how Jews computed a day;

(3) If a day is an era, why are an evening and a morning even mentioned?;

(4) Actual days must be intended; otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e.g., Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years. If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years;

(5) If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic. For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word "yom" is employed: "And the flood was forty days upon the earth" (Gen. 7:17), "And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights" (Ex. 34:28), and "Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights..." (Deut. 9:25). If "yom" means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was "there with the Lord" for a long time.

(6) If a day means more than 24-hour period, then how are we to interpret the following verses, as well as scores of others. "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath.... in it thou shalt not work.... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...and rested the seventh day" (Ex. 20:9-11).

(7) Gen. 1:16 ("And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night") states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. This obviously is referring to time as we know it--time with days that are 24 hours long, with daylight ruling half of each.

(8) And lastly, Adam was made on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26, 31), which was supposedly thousand of years long. This was followed by the 7th day which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden. This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 (Gen. 5:5).

So much for Christian vs. Christians issues. Let's talk about the implication of Genesis' interpretations.

1. On the 3rd day God created all types of plants, yet it will take God another thousand of years to create the Sun and the moon and another thousand of years to create the animals.

So how did the plants survived without light from the Sun and those animals that will pollinate them for a thousand of years?

2. Did the Sun, the moon and the stars appear on the same period?

3. If God loves humanity so much, why will it take God to create them a thousand years later after creating the animals?

You assumed that when the Bible speaks of “four corners of the earth”, which definitely has a figurative meaning (North, South, East and West).. it is already against science as it teaches a “flat earth”. It is clear that you have not searched deeply into the Scriptures where you could find passages stating like “the circle of the earth”!

About Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, are the authors of the said books were referring to a figurative meaning of the four directions (North, East West and South)? Let see:

Most Bible apologists say that the four corners of the Earth mean the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. SO? What’s the problem with that? The problem is not the symbolic directions but rather the belief that planet Earth was flat. It’s OK for a flat Earth to have 4 directions. Attempts are made to turn this, and other similar passages, into something symbolic, rather than literal. Ok… Just because this myth is now known to be wrong, doesn't mean we can retroactively apply symbolism to the original author's intention.

Speaking of a flat vs. circle Earth...well, a circle Earth can still be a flat world. Have you ever seen a coin?

According to the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes in his book Topographia Christiana, the physical world is flat surrounded by four seas. That’s why prior to Columbus and Magellan, it is believed that you cannot sail beyond Europe sailing west to the East Indies because if you do that…well…you will fall in the “ends of the Earth” (see: Jer. 16:19 and Acts 13:47) beyond the Rock of Gibraltar.

Trying to justify the 10 Commandments.

2010-01-13T11:13:00.004+08:00

Old Testament Theology argues that the Decalogue is perfect not in the quantitative but in the qualitative sense. It is also superior than others because it came from the Creator, while others were merely inventions of men and falsely attributing them to non-existent divine beings.

There is nothing godly with the Decalogue nor does it show anything divinely unique to assume it as heavenly mandated.

In fact, there are no original moral concept in the last five commandments. The Laws of Solon seems to be more better and it even eliminated birth as basis for government office and created the basis of Western democracy - laws that a so-called benevolent god seems to forgotten.

Exodus 20:5 – 7 The Bible verses are indeed strange to atheism.
What’s objectionable about God’s jealousy? Jealousy in an “exclusive” relationship (like God and Israel; like marriage too) is a healthy indication of genuine love.

I'm not really convince with this explanation. You see, jealousy exemplifies the stupidity, insecurity and loser-ness of someone. It shows a lack of confidence and put it bluntly, jealousy is the irrational fear of losing someone, at the hands of a contender. The footnote of the New American Bible even says that jealousy here means demanding exclusive allegiance...Demands? Wow!

Now how on Earth does a "perfect being" still have such irrational fear and demands His people to worship Him?

(See: Deut. 4:24; 5:9, Joshua 24:19, Ezekiel 38;19, Nahum 1:2 and Zec. 8:2)

Exodus 20:12 - Long life is a blessing that God will give to His covenant-people when they honor their parents. It was not a meant to explain a natural occurrence.

There is no problem in the issue of honoring ones parents - but why the rewards? Can't you not honor them without expecting anything?

That's the problem with religious morality. it is only effective through rewards and punishment and according to how well one snaps into line with a prescribe sets of rules. Motivation to the act is base not on the agent's primary motive for acting but on the sactions and recompenses accompanying the rule.

Exodus 20:13 - The verse should be translated as “murder” (the illegitimate way of taking a person’s life), not the broader term “kill.”

God is the author of life. He has every right to take away man’s life. He commanded His covenant-people Israel to execute justice on His behalf by taking away the life of those whom He judged as guilty and ran out of time from the grace period He gave. However, God did not extend this command to His new covenant-people.

Murder...not kill huh? So I suppose those 47 revisers that James I called in January 1604 erred huh?

Ah OK...the NIV (New International Version) say it is "murder" not "kill". Yet some Christians say that the NIV is not textually trustworthy and they would not trust the NIV rendering of a (take note) word and phrase without first consulting the original languages (Translation On Trial - Is the Bible the Word of God? Robert G. Gromacki p.50)

It is also noted that some Bible translation used "kill" not "murder".

Hebrew Transliterated20:13 L'a ThUrTShCh.
Latin Vulgate20:13 non occides
King James Version20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
American Standard Version20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Darby's English Translation20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Douay Rheims Bible20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Noah Webster Bible20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

But even if I accept the excuse, it still doesn't get God off the hook. You see, murder is defined by the Philippine Revised Penal Code as:

Title 8, Chapter 1, Sec. 1, Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse

Now, let us read the following:

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version)
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)

In where I stand, when someone orders a person to kill defenseless babies and elders, that tantamount to murder. (See; U.S. vs. Charles Manson)

(BTW: Murder has nothing to do with justice)

Exodus 20:17 - It disregards other commandments about wives, esp in Lev. 18 & 20, which shows how God wanted women to be treated with respect and dignity.

Will you please re-read Leviticus Chapter 18 to 20. Notice that the laws were made not to respect women but how not to disgrace your father, your uncle, your son, your brother and your neighbor. Also, the same book says that when a woman gave birth to a female child, she is unclean for 2 weeks compare to a male child. (Lev. 12: 2-5).

The Bible will always treat women as a mere property of man. She was created on Adam's rib and Adam named her as he has named all the animals. She doesn't share Adam's status, his glory and his divine image. Her role was Adam's helpmeet, his companionship and to bring him pleasure...that's until the time when gender vanishes (Gal. 3:26-28)...according to the woman loathing Paul!

The Black Jesus

2010-01-11T09:01:00.002+08:00

I'm not talking about a soulman who think he's Jesus...nope...I'm talking about a certain image of Jesus hailed as a celebrity in a district in downtown Manila. Every January 9, thousands of devotees from all walks of life come to Quiapo to take part in the procession as a way of strengthening their faith or fulfilling their “panata” (vow) to the Feast of the Black Nazarene.

The Black Nazarene is a life-sized, dark-colored, wooden sculpture of a "black" Jesus Christ carrying a cross held to be miraculous by many Filipino devotees. Its original carver is an anonymous Aztec carpenter and the image was transported by a galleon from Acapulco, Mexico by the first group of Augustinian Recollect friars sent by Spain. Legend has it that the Black Nazarene was charred black because of a fire that broke out on the galleon during its trip to Manila from Mexico. It arrived on May 31, 1606, in this form and has always been depicted as such.

It was transferred from its old home from San Nicolas de Tolentino in Intramuros to its present site in Quiapo, Manila at the Saint John de Baptist Church (Now called Minor Basilica of the Black Nazarene) in 1787 by then Archbishop of Manila, Basilio Sancho de Santa Junta y Rufina.

On the day of The Feast, the church doors open wide and the pilgrims of the area and abroad search for healing and hope. They wave white towels and throw them towards the statue hoping for the chance to touch the image too. The procession begins and the statue in its gilded carriage moves slowly as honored participants dressed in maroon pull the carriage along ropes as thousands of barefoot devotees follow along. The procession followers walk barefoot to mirror Jesus as walked on to Mount Caramel.

It is said that only the body of the Black Nazarene is displayed in the procession, the original head portion of the statue is safely protected in the Minor Basilica of the Black Nazarene tucked away in the high altars.

Just last January 9, 2010, it was estimated that at least two million devotees of the Black Nazarene flooded the area from Luneta to Quiapo to join the holy procession. Walking barefoot, these devotees will endure the intense heat of the midday Sun, the crushing crowd and the hot asphalt pavement just to touch or wipe a towel on the body of the paraded idol.

So why do you think these devotees will do all that trouble?

Let see...I think it's all about petitions - the request for some benefit or a reparation of a grievance. Come on guys...you won't do all those sacrifices without expecting any compensation. It's really a form of ancient worship. Our ancestors created elaborate ceremonies and rituals to please the gods so rain will fall on dry rice fields. Sacrifices and fasting are required for a bountiful harvests.

Biblical speaking, such practices are forbidden (unless you're a Roman Catholic) Exodus 20:4-6 is quite clear in the issue.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I The Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My Commandments"

Is Jesus a Nazarene or from Nazareth?

There is a lot of issue concerning the word Nazareth in Jesus' title. Are we saying that Jesus was from Nazareth or if he's a member of the Nazarene sect?

Christian will gladly point our Matthew 2:23 for the answer.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

But a thorough search of the Old Testament will turn up nothing. There isn't any prophet in the Old Testament that prophesied it. In fact, the town of Nazareth is never mentioned in the Old Testament.

Excuses varies. Some suggest that Matthew refers to Isaiah 11:1 yet Isaiah nor the whole Old Testament never indicated or even implied that the Messiah will be called a "nester".

There are also who would say that the Nazarene in Matthew refers to the Nazirite. If you are not familiar with it, it can be found in described in Numbers 6:1-21.

It is said the person that took the Nazirite vow should follow the following:

1. Abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins, and according to some — alcohol and vinegar from alcohol.
2. Refrain from cutting the hair on one's head.
3. Avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members, and any structure which contains such.

So, is Jesus a Nazirite?

Jesus couldn't have been a Nazarite by vow because He didn't live alone or apart, He drank wine, and He touched and raised the dead.

Also, Matthew was clear that Jesus was called a Nazarene (Nazaraios) because he lived in a town called Nazareth. So there! The issue about "natser" or "natsar" or nazir" has no bearing. Matthew 2:23 is a "fulfillment" of a non-existing prophecy.

Is it possible that Jesus and his black counterpart are just stuff of legends? I'll just leave this thought to the devotees...as Ol' Bernie Russell once said, "Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, or if he did we know nothing about him".

And the Bible said...

2010-01-07T21:20:00.000+08:00

Recently, I have a very bad conversation with a certain Christian who calls itself “tutti”. I think this fellow really does not have any idea what an atheist is. He keeps giving me Bible verses to prove his point. It is not really a surprise.

Majority of Christians that I have met used the Bible in their argument as if the Bible is the epitome of truth and answers. Well if you think that the Bible is the word of a certain omnipotent, omniscient deity, you will take its word as certainty. Remember, Christian fundamentalism accepts the Bible as a credible source in science and history. If you really like to hear idiotic responses, try talking to a Christian fundy about the Bible.

Opinions about the Bible vary from different atheists, but majority think that biblical criticism is futile. The American Atheist Center even feels that it is demeaning to an atheist to argue with a Fundy over his “holy” book. The problem about Bible topics is that the book is by faith, not reason. Oh sure, a person cannot be swallowed by a fish, yet the Bible said so. Man cannot walk on water, but the Bible said so. Water cannot supernaturally change to wine but the Bible said so. An egg cannot “sit” in a castle wall, but Humpy Dumpy said so. Wolves cannot dress up like Grandma, but Little Red Riding Hood said so. You see when we talk about the Bible, we are entering the Christian fundy’s fantastic realm of gods, angels, demons, messiahs, dungeons and dragons. You cannot win a logical discussion when Peter Pan and the Fairy God Mother confront you.

Then why will a Christian Fundy like “tutti” use its chapters and verses when discussing to an atheist? What is the point? I really do not have the slightest idea why Christian fundies use the Bible to an atheist. Maybe because they think that atheism is also a religion or that an atheist will accept his/her verses because the “holy spirit” is on their side.

A Christian can also use the biblical descriptions of sin and hell. Surely, it will scare an atheist out of his wits. In the first part of tutti’s response, he did not forget of putting sin, salvation and the damnation in hell first. I remember when I am still a Born-Again Christian; I also use a lot of this scary concept to discourage free inquiry in relation to biblical subjects. However, is it effective?

Let me put this straight. Atheists do not sin. Surprised? It is easy to explain. You see, according to Christian belief, sin is the transgression of god’s law. Since an atheist does not believe in the existence of a god, VIOLA! Sin does not exist too. Therefore, what is the point of talking about sins? What is the point of talking about salvation from sin? Moreover, what is the use of the concept of hell? So what is the point of using the Bible to justify your belief to an atheist?

Here is another problem about the Bible. It seems Christians have a divided issue when it comes to Bible interpretation. I am not really in the position to say who the real Christian is or who is not. So let us say, all these Bible fanatics are Christians. According to their belief system, Christians trust the infallibility of the Bible yet it seems there is a big problem in interpreting the book. There is really a wide range of different Bible hermeneutics. For example, suppose I am talking to three Christians belonging to three different Christian sects. Now one person is explaining to me about the trinity. The other two might disagree with him. It might even end as a debate between the three Christians.

Roman Catholic can justify their stones and wooden saints using the Bible, yet fundamentalist Christians can castigate the Roman Catholics for worshipping graven image using the Bible. The Iglesia ni Cristo can wage war of words to Eliseo Soriano’s Church of God, International using the Bible.

Do you know that different Christian sects interpret a single verse like John 1:1 in different ways?

Now what truth and answer shall I derive from that?

If these Christians cannot even reconcile their differences, then why will they expect a heretic like me to take their claim seriously?

Jesus and the Water Strider

2010-01-07T16:26:00.000+08:00

Talking with fanatic believers is really hilarious. Now here's a guy who is comparing Jesus to a water strider (Good Grief!) .

Kamen Rider Decade
Pinoy Atheist:

you said
“Example: I may say that Jesus walk on water…and I have faith that Jesus is really capable of doing that. Am I employing logic to this belief? No. If I will then I will began to doubt the issues of supernatural miracles. That’s why religious faith is not logical.”

dude, what if i tell you that a water strider can walk on water? that according to an episode of ripley’s believe it or not, tagalized by michael v., it states that a woman, through intense concentration can float on water for hours. if they can do it, jesus can too. it was just made known that water striders walk on a thin layer on the water’s surface for them to be able to do the trick. through proper concentration and exercise, we can do the ‘floating’ trick while we swim with our loved ones.

So base on this letter, Jesus is a big joker huh? That's fine with me. But let's just consider his letter for a moment...

A water strider can glide (not walk) in water due to the "special hierarchical structure of the legs, which are covered by large numbers of oriented tiny hairs (microsetae) with fine nanogrooves". They go on to demonstrate that the water resistance is due more to this physical structure than the chemical properties of the wax coating of the legs.

Does Jesus has hairy legs? (lol)

Water striders don't use concentration and meditation. Water Strides can do it due to microstructures on the legs. Their legs were covered in many needle shaped setae, with diameters ranging from 3 micrometres down to a few hundred nanometres. Most of the setae were about 50 micrometres long and were at an angle of about 20° from the surface of leg. Each microseta also had nanoscale grooves, contributing to the hierarchical structure of the leg.

Now after the insect example, he then say that Jesus did a floating trick. Hey dude! Floating tricks are not the same as walking in water!

The issue of water walking is one of the miracles that the Gospels attribute to Jesus. An account of the miracle appears in the Gospels of John (John 6:16-21), of Matthew (Matthew 14:22-33) and of Mark (Mark 6:45-52) .

According to the Biblical narrative, Jesus sent the disciples in a boat, ahead of him, to Bethsaida, but when they were half way across the lake, Jesus walked over the lake and met them. The narrative states that the disciples were scared at first, thinking it was a ghost, but when Jesus revealed himself and got into the boat, they calmed down. According to Matthew, Peter was also able to walk on water, following Jesus's example.

But water walking is not new in other religions. In Buddhism for example, Sariputta walked on the waters of a great river in south of Savatthi. In ancient Greek Mythology the giant hunter and son of the gods Orion walked on water.

Dennis R. Macdonald, in his book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark claims that Mark based many elements of his gospel stories on tales in Homer’s epics, Iliad, and Odyssey.

Well I still haven't read this book but according to Mr.MacDonald, in the Homeric story, the Trojan King Priam and his herald, Idaeus, are traveling by chariot and wagon across the plain to fetch the body of Hector, Priam's son, from their enemy, Achilles. The god Zeus, looking down from Mount Olympus on the pair, takes pity on them, and sends Hermes, the messenger god, down to escort the men safely. Hermes "flies over the waves" of the Aegean Sea and "touches down on Troy…and from there he went on foot…" As Hermes approaches the men in the darkness, Priam’s servant notices Hermes “standing near them”; they mistake him for an enemy soldier and are terrified. Hermes calms them with a lie, telling them he is Achilles' aide. Hermes leaps into the chariot and guides the men safely through the enemy camp. Once they safely reach Achilles, Hermes tells Priam, "I am a god come down to you, I am immortal Hermes…"

Until next time,
John the Atheist

One Video EVERY Christian should watch! by Thunderf00t

2010-01-07T11:29:00.002+08:00

Almost no Christians have read the Bible, an interesting irony given that it is purported to be the source of their religion.

Heavenly Knowledge froma a Dead God.

2009-11-20T09:05:00.000+08:00

Let’s face it guys. Fundamentalist Christians are intellectually dishonest people…and this is not an accusation. I’m just stating a fact.

Knowledge kills ignorance and superstition. That’s a fact. And the Christian God survives because of these 2 pillars. To topple the pillar of ignorance and superstition is to topple God. Ignorance and superstition hold God in his altar in heaven. Ignorance and superstition binds our mind to think. Well…that’s the arrangement. You have to stop thinking in order to worship God. But why?

The answer is faith.

Faith expands when reason is chained.

Faith in Jesus, theological insights, and spiritual gifts are to substitute knowledge, disputation, and philosophy as the ultimate basis of truth. In effect, faith is to replace proof, hope is to replace work, and trust is to replace evidence. People are to rely on forces and supernatural beings beyond their control rather than their own talents and abilities. That’s the game plan. A person who knows his own talent cannot be subjugated by kings and priests. Religion is the only way to do it.

Notice the following Biblical verses:
1 COR. 3:18-19 "Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God”

COL. 2:8 RSV "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ"

2 TIM. 2:16-17 "Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will eat its way like gangrene"

1 TIM. 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called...."

2 TIM. 2:14 RSV "Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers"

ROM. 14:1 RSV "As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions"

The sample Bible verses just show how terrified the Bible God and the Christ on science, inquiries and philosophy.

Now it is important to any sensible society is the belief that truth is discovered through the interchange of ideas in an open forum. Knowledge is power so to speak and any advancing civilization knows that. Yet, Christians are repeatedly cautioned to avoid those of another point of view and shun the exchange of ideas through dialogue. They are told to run away from non-biblical ideas because the latter are not only wrong and lead believers astray but possessed by those with less than honorable motives. Christian beliefs are not to be open to questions and doubts. The question is why. Is God afraid to face facts? Is there a truth in the issue of “The God of the Gaps” where God is being push farther away when new discoveries are found?

The truth of the matter is that faith will not withstand intellectual scrutiny. Fundamentalism and fanaticism is always opposed to progress and the advancement of human knowledge in particular. As Robert Ingersoll have once said, "When religion becomes scientific, it ceases to be religion and becomes science. Religion is not intellectual--it is emotional. It does not appeal to the reason. The founder of a religion has always said, 'Let him that hath ears to hear, hear!' No founder has said: 'Let him that hath brains to think, think!". Ambrose Bierce probably encapsulated the concept as well as anyone when he defined faith as "belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

The Christians accuse non-believers of “worldly knowledge”. Knowledge that is supposes to be foolishness to God. Hmmmm…well let see what kind of knowledge this God has to offer.

• Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
• Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
• Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
• Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
• Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
• The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
• The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
• The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
• A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
• The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
• A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
• Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
• The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
• The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
• Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
• The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9);
• A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
• That salt loses its saltiness

The Bible also says that the following mythical creatures exist
• cockatrices (Jer. 8:17, Isa. 11:8 59:5),
• unicorns (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10),
• satyrs (Isa. 34:14, 13:21)
• fiery serpents (Num. 21:6),
• flying serpents (Isa. 14:29, 30:6).

The Christian God and its adherents seems fearful of inquiry, fearful of freedom, fearful of knowledge – indeed, fearful of anything except its own repetitious propaganda. Yet reading the Bible seems to give us a hopelessly ignorant God rather than an omniscient character. Sickness for example does not result from sin being punish. Even the most righteous person can feel ill. Nor does cure came from prayers (See: James 5:13-15). Today, diseases are known to be cause by virus, bacteria and fungi and it’s a common knowledge that these diseases can be cured by antibiotics, chemotherapy and surgery. Even the Roman Catholic Pope knows it, that’s why he goes to a hospital whenever he feels ill. Well…quite the opposite from the Judeo-Christian sacred book, the ancient Chinese have already catalogue different herbal plants to be use to different illness however reading the Bible once cannot even find a good medicine against tooth ache. Ancient civilizations have already thought about medicine yet we find that the Bible God is too unaware on these matters.

Just read Mark 5:8 and 9:25. Jesus still believes that mental illnesses are result of demon possession. Talk about an omniscient God huh? It was highly documented that the Egyptians and ancient Peruvians have already been performing cranial surgery even before Jesus walks on Earth. In the year 1800’s people believed that small pox was a punishment from God. They even oppose the creation of a vaccine against small pox. Yet today science has eradicated small pox from the face of this planet. An act never accomplished by God. If God’s heavenly knowledge didn’t accomplished anything, then what good is it for? Can you bore a hole with it?

Today “Acts of God” were now called “natural disaster”. We now can predict such phenomena like earthquakes and hurricane with remarkable accuracy. A feat never achieved by these so-called prophets of God.

The Bible believed that the Earth was in the center of the Universe, Naturally, Earth was God’s footstool. Yet because of Copernicus and Galileo, Earth could no longer be envisioned as the center of the Universe and in December 28, 1991, 3 days after Jesus’ birthday, The Vatican officially admitted that God, the Church and the Bible have been wrong and Galileo was right! With physics and astronomy, human have conquered the moon and have send robot space probe to other planets and even outside our own galaxy. Medicine and biology have eradicated some diseases that were present on Jesus time. We can now cure leprosy without relying to magic, miracles and useless prayers. What does theology did in the advancement of humankind?

Now, even God’s kingdom in heaven was kicked out. Up there is no heaven beyond the heavens. Our embrace of the vastness of the Cosmos have removed God from the sky and in our human consciousness. God became a vanished image, unlike the days when the Bible speaks of his power and wrath.

Charles Darwin’s discovery showed us that there is no ultimate destiny. That man is just the same as other animals in this planet. Now it seems that God is nothing but a superlative image of man created by humans. There is nothing special about Him. Freud and Jung exposed the neurotic element of religion and that God is nothing more but a fantasized fatherly figure. The destruction of God was total and complete. Today the so-called miracles of the Bible were no more, No more talking snakes, no more people turning into pillars of salt, the Red Sea will never open up to let the Hebrew cross a dry land, no more water changing into wine and no more Lazarus to resurrect. The God of the Christians, the Bible God, who was the source of their value, the definer of their sense of right or wrong, the creator of their universe, the eternal king of the kingdom they have dream was simply no more.

Now all we have are the noisy Christian Fundies: souls that still cling from the remnants of this mythology. They are the devotees that will reject everything just to defend their departed deity. They refuse neither to listen nor to enter debates. With great vehemence, they will deny the knowledge that caused their God to perish.

This is what kind of knowledge Christians has to offer, the so-called “heavenly knowledge” that have done nothing so far; a knowledge that is wasted from endless discussion to prove something without proof. Knowledge that was built from assumptions and assurances, that hides from scrutiny and inquiry. What’s amusing is Christians still insists of calling this “knowledge”. But I choose a better knowledge, one that was founded from deep scrutiny and scientific inquiry. I choose the knowledge of this world, the knowledge that is empirical and reachable. The knowledge that I choose have better and tangible results: This “worldly” knowledge that exterminated their God.

John the Atheist

And God spoke all these commandments.

2009-11-10T09:05:00.001+08:00

Today the issue about the Ten Commandments flooded the secular scene. So is it really necessary to display the Ten Commandments just outside the Philippine Supreme Court building?

Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17)
Exodus 20:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods
before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,
nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity
of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and
keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in
vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the
LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy
mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15
Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Christians believed that the Ten Commandments remarkably display infinite wisdom and is a morally perfect code beyond criticism.

Yet the Decalogue is not a perfect moral code, nor at all superior to the religious and legislative codes of other ancient civilization. The first 5 ( Exodus 20: 2- 11) possess no moral value whatever. It is obvious that they are simply religious emanations from obsolate priestcraft. The last 5 ( Exodus 20:12-17 ) bears the same relation to natural morality.

Exodus 20:5 - 7 is a strange commandment that claiming to be coming from an "all-good" and "all-powerful" God. It is worthy to note why an "all-powerful" being will be "jealous". Also, this make the Hindu god Brahma more sensible when He (Brahma) said, "Those who worship other gods worship me because I hear them, and correct thier mistakes."

Exodus 20:12 Now that's a good commandment, but I have never learned that long-live persons have been more dutiful to parents than others.

Exodus 20:13 Yet the so-called "holy people" were killing all the time, in His own commands! Thus, violating this commandment.

Exodus 20:17 Here, a wife is treated as a mere property - same as a servant, an ox or a donkey.

The Bible is, for the most part, the crude literature of a people who lived long ago - The idea of being a "chosen people of God" emanate the immoral deeds and opinions which found expression in the writings of self-profess priest and prophets. The finer principles of morality are neglected.

God is not the Creator, claims academic

2009-10-10T16:01:00.002+08:00

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 5:45PM BST 08 Oct 2009

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia.

She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".

The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

According to Judeo-Christian tradition, God created the Earth out of nothing.

Prof Van Wolde, who once worked with the Italian academic and novelist Umberto Eco, said her new analysis showed that the beginning of the Bible was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of a narration.

She said: "It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself."

She writes in her thesis that the new translation fits in with ancient texts.

According to them there used to be an enormous body of water in which monsters were living, covered in darkness, she said.

She said technically "bara" does mean "create" but added: "Something was wrong with the verb.

"God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?"

She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground.

"There was already water," she said.

"There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding."

God came later and made the earth livable, separating the water from the land and brought light into the darkness.

She said she hoped that her conclusions would spark "a robust debate", since her finds are not only new, but would also touch the hearts of many religious people.

She said: "Maybe I am even hurting myself. I consider myself to be religious and the Creator used to be very special, as a notion of trust. I want to keep that trust."

A spokesman for the Radboud University said: "The new interpretation is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it."

Prof Van Wolde added: "The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now."

Gender-neutral Bibles: God is getting His gender back

2009-09-06T08:24:00.000+08:00

This week biblical publishers and scholars announced that a new New International Version will be unveiled in 2011, the first overall update of the modern translation since 1984. But don't look for androgynous vocabulary. As soon as it's published, the gender-neutral NIV that rankled some evangelicals in 2005 will vanish.

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, author of "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible," doubts the revision has as much to do with the evolution of the English language as the orthodox trends in evangelical thought.

"They are changing the gender-neutral language, no doubt, because their 'base' is conservative evangelical Christians who are offended by anything that appears to have a feminist agenda behind it, not because the language has changed," Ehrman said during a news conference at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights earlier this week. "If it has changed, of course, it has changed toward greater gender neutrality -- except in religiously and politically conservative circles."

But not all scholars agree.

"We cannot bow to any particular current pressure group and try to fit the Bible into a cultural mode," said Douglas Moo, chairman of the independent panel of biblical scholars responsible for the translation. "Then the Bible loses its ability to speak to us and change us."

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

Bible update? "Word of God" needs to be upgraded!

2009-09-05T16:21:00.003+08:00

NIV Bible update may spark battle

The Bible translation that has served as the, well, bible of the evangelical movement is getting an update.

Depending on how it's done, it could ignite the parent of all translation battles. Or it could reconcile a conflict that has pitted sibling against sibling.

More than 300 million copies of the New International Version of the Bible have been sold since it came out in 1978. It has become the translation of choice for many conservative evangelicals. And it has been packaged in countless ways — from standard study Bibles with commentary to a couples Bible with relationship lessons to camouflage-covered military versions.

But a quarter-century after its last revision, its copyright holder says it's time to bring it up to date with current uses of the English language. One noncontroversial example would be replacing “alien” with “foreigner,” but a conflict may loom over the use of gender in pronouns and other grammatical forms.

Controversy has surrounded two efforts to update the NIV — a New International Version Inclusive published in Britain in the 1990s and another that resulted in the Today's New International Version earlier this decade.

In both cases, translators used more “inclusive” language involving gender. (You need a scorecard to keep track of the versions.)

But some criticized those versions as more politically than linguistically correct. The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution in 2002 contending that the TNIV version “had gone beyond acceptable translation standards” in some cases where “father” was changed to “parent,” “man” to “mortals” and “sons of God” to “children of God.” Defenders said that as most English speakers no longer use male terms when referring to people regardless of sex, the Bibles they use should follow suit.

At issue are complex questions of whether the passages in their original context were referring specifically to males or humans in general, or to people in the singular or plural.

Keith Danby, global president of the Colorado-based Biblica, formerly the International Bible Society, said earlier this week that “some of the criticism” of the New International Version Inclusive in the 1990s was justified. Biblica holds the translation's copyright.

Moe Girkins, president of Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Zondervan, which has published the TNIV, acknowledged that version “has become an emblem of division in the evangelical Christian world.' It will be phased out once the new NIV comes on-line.

A Committee on Bible Translation is expected to produce the new version by 2011. Early indications are that the committee likes many of the changes in the TNIV and may retain them in the new NIV.

Randy Stinson, a dean at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in a statement that it “is very humble of Zondervan and Biblica to admit mistakes and acknowledge the controversy that they brought to the evangelical community.” Stinson also is president of the Louisville-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which promotes male authority in churches and families.

He said he is “hopeful” for the new version but would reserve judgment until it came out.

A similar hope, but for different reasons, was voiced by Mimi Haddad, president of the Minnesota-based Christians for Biblical Equality, which as its name suggests promotes the “fundamental equality of men and women.”

“Many of us believe the TNIV is biblically correct.” She called for prayer that the new version would be “biblically accurate and comprehensible.”

The NIV itself is rooted in controversy as conservatives sought an alternative to the Revised Standard Version produced in the mid-20th century and used by moderate and liberal Protestant denominations. For example, did Isaiah prophesy that a “virgin” shall bear a son, as he does in the vintage King James Version and in the NIV? Or did he predict that a “young woman” would less miraculously conceive, as does the Revised Standard Version and its successor, the New Revised Standard Version?

Both ways of translating the phrase have their defenders. And given the history, one thing is certain: Those preparing the new NIV are going to be closely watched.

Peter Smith is the religion writer for The Courier-Journal. This column is adapted from his Faith & Works blog at www.courier-journal.com/faithblog. He can be reached at (502) 582-4469.

Moe Girkins, president of Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Zondervan, which has published the TNIV, acknowledged that version “has become an emblem of division in the evangelical Christian world.' It will be phased out once the new NIV comes on-line.

A Committee on Bible Translation is expected to produce the new version by 2011. Early indications are that the committee likes many of the changes in the TNIV and may retain them in the new NIV.

Randy Stinson, a dean at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in a statement that it “is very humble of Zondervan and Biblica to admit mistakes and acknowledge the controversy that they brought to the evangelical community.” Stinson also is president of the Louisville-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which promotes male authority in churches and families.

He said he is “hopeful” for the new version but would reserve judgment until it came out.

A similar hope, but for different reasons, was voiced by Mimi Haddad, president of the Minnesota-based Christians for Biblical Equality, which as its name suggests promotes the “fundamental equality of men and women.”

“Many of us believe the TNIV is biblically correct.” She called for prayer that the new version would be “biblically accurate and comprehensible.”

The NIV itself is rooted in controversy as conservatives sought an alternative to the Revised Standard Version produced in the mid-20th century and used by moderate and liberal Protestant denominations. For example, did Isaiah prophesy that a “virgin” shall bear a son, as he does in the vintage King James Version and in the NIV? Or did he predict that a “young woman” would less miraculously conceive, as does the Revised Standard Version and its successor, the New Revised Standard Version?

Both ways of translating the phrase have their defenders. And given the history, one thing is certain: Those preparing the new NIV are going to be closely watched.

Peter Smith is the religion writer for The Courier-Journal. This column is adapted from his Faith & Works blog at www.courier-journal.com/faithblog. He can be reached at (502) 582-4469.

Missing some days...missing some facts

2009-05-12T09:02:00.002+08:00

According to those who believed that the Bible is scientifically correct, the account in the Book of Joshua, that God "commanded the Sun to stand still was proven by NASA (for crying out loud...)

Anyway, if you're not familliar with the story, well...here is it:

Joshua 10:12: Then spoke Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel and he said in the sight of Israel "Sun, stand thou still at Gibcon and thou Moon in the valley of Ai'jalon."

Joshua 10:13: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Then...a story began to circulate in the Internet:

Did you know that the space program is busy proving that what has been called "myth" in the Bible is true? Mr. Harold Hill, President of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore Maryland, and a consultant in the space program, relates the following development:

"I think one of the most amazing things that God has for us today happened recently to our astronauts and space scientists at Green Belt, Maryland. They were checking the position of the sun, moon, and planets out in space where they would be, 100 years and 1000 years from now. We have to know this so we won't send a satellite up and have it bump into something later on in its orbits. We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the satellite, and where the planets will be, so the whole thing will not bog down.

They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong either with the information fed into it, or with the results as compared to the standards. They called in the service department to check it out and they said, "What's wrong?" Well, they found there is a day missing in space, in elapsed time. They scratched their heads and tore their hair. There was no answer.

Finally, a Christian man on the team said, "You know, one time I was in Sunday School and they talked about the sun standing still." While they didn't believe him, they didn't have an answer either, so they said, "Show us." He got a Bible and went back to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty ridiculous statement for any one with "common sense". There they found the Lord saying to Joshua, "Fear them not, I have delivered them into thy hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee." Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy and if darkness fell they would overpower them (Joshua 10:1-15). So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! That's right, "The sun stood still and the moon stayed, and hasted not to go down about a whole day!"

They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshua's day was 23 hours and 20 minutes, not a whole day.

They read the Bible and there it was "about (approximately) a day". These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble, because if you cannot account for 40 minutes you'll still be in trouble, 1,000 years from now. Forty minutes had to be found because it can be multiplied many times over in orbits. As the Christian employee thought about it, he remembered somewhere in the Bible where it said the sun went BACKWARDS.

The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the Book and read these words in 2 Kings: Hezekiah, on his death-bed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof. Isaiah said, "Do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees?" Hezekiah said, "It is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backward 10 degrees." Isaiah spoke to the

Lord and the Lord brought the shadow ten degrees BACKWARD! Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes! Twenty-three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings make the missing day in the universe! Isn't it amazing?!

Our God is rubbing their noses in His Truth!

... So the Bible is true!

Hahaha! Kidding aside. If these wackos will only be more eh "investigative" to find the truth of this account.

According to Scopes the story is another Christian Urban Legend (again?), just like Darwin's deathbed conversion and the one about the atheist professor who drops a chalk.

The source of the story was Harry Rimmer's book Harmony of Sciencve and Scripture. Mr. Harold Hill wasn't even a NASA consultant; his firm did diesel engine maintenance and such for the space agency!

William Willoughby, at that time religion editor of the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, inquired of the NASA Spaceflight Center at Greenbelt, Maryland, where the computer proof is said to have occurred. NASA denied all knowledge of it. He spoke with Mr. Hill, who says that he obtained the story from a reliable source, and is sure that it is true, but has mislaid his notes and cannot remember exactly where he read or heard it. Many of us know the feeling, and will absolve Mr. Hill from the charge of conscious dishonesty (he has never admitted “making it up,” and I find no reason to suppose that he did), but at the same time will insist that his account is not acceptable as evidence.

So is this another Christian tactic? Spreading a lie to justify another lie? Come on my Christian friends...grow up!

Relevance Of The Bible In The 21st Century | Sam Harris @ Big Think

2009-04-29T09:46:00.001+08:00

Banned From The Bible

2009-04-22T10:32:00.000+08:00

For many of the faithful, the idea smacks of heresy. But the Bible we know is just one of many versions that surely circulated in the early days of Christianity. Even fully-fledged books were left out of the "final draft." In this single collection, THE HISTORY CHANNEL® has gathered a definitive survey of these "extracanonical" texts. Learn of their creation alongside - or even before - the more accepted books of the Bible we know today. Discover their messages and what we can conclude about the early Church from their exclusion. And see the lengths to which ancient editors went to hide them and to which modern scholars have gone to uncover them. This documentary series comprises over three hours of eye-opening information that vastly expands our knowledge of the Bible's creation.

An Atheist Reads the Bible series

2009-04-22T10:28:00.001+08:00

This new animated series uses a verbatim reading from lesser-known stories from the Bible. And by "lesser-known," that means horrible stories that the religious either pretend do not exist, or wish didn't.

Eddie Izzard ILLUSTRATED

2009-04-22T10:12:00.002+08:00

Noah's Ark? Give me a break!

Jesus & the Dinosaurs. Now this is funny!

What Should YHWH Do?

2009-04-22T09:54:00.002+08:00

What Jesus Should Do...

2009-04-22T09:46:00.001+08:00

Leave No Stone Unturned - An Easter Challenge For Christians

2009-04-07T16:59:00.001+08:00

This first appeared in Freethought Today, March 1990
© Copyright 1990 by Dan Barker. All Rights Reserved.

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."
Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)

Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)

John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)

Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)

Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)

John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)

Mark: Yes (16:4)

Luke: Yes (24:2)

John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)

Mark: One young man (16:5)

Luke: Two men (24:4)

John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)

Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)

Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)

John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)

Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)

Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)

John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)

Mark: Yes (16:10,11)

Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)

John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)

Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)

John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)

John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)

Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)

Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)

John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)

Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)

Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)

Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)

John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)

Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)

Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)

Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)

John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday

Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday

John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)

Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee

Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)

Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)

John: No ascension

Paul: No ascension

Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

The Flood - Global or Regional?

2009-01-23T09:38:00.006+08:00

Lately I notice that some Christians are trying to "sanitized" their Bible and I think the best example is the flood story.

According to these Christians, the flood is just a regional event and not a catastrophy of global proportion...Regional? Well now...it seems some Chrtistians are now in agreement with skeptics and liberals huh?

But frankly I find this tactic as a joke. Are they now saying the flood is a regional event because its really hard to justify a global flood? The bad news here is that the Bible is talking about a global deluge. If the story is just a regional event as these Christian are now trying to justify then why will the Hebrew god order Noah and his family to build an ark? I think it will be more easy to God and Noah to transfer to a place where the flood waters will not reach him.

Second, why will God need Noah to gather all animals in pair? You will not need to re-populate the Earth is the flood is just a regional event.

OK...let see more of their reasons:

According to these "regionalists", nowhere in the Bible can you find any verse that speaks of a ‘worldwide flood’. What is in the Bible are the following informations:

(Genesis 7:10-12) “And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”

(Genesis 7:17-20) “And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”

According to their cant, the Bible doesn't believe in a world-wide flood that covered Planet Earth.

Hmmmmm secularists agree that there were no "world wide" flood. Now it seems the these Christians are agreeing with the non-believers in this issue.

In the issue concerning the flood, non-believers believe that the flood of Noah was a Euphrates River flood in southern Sumer similar to the flood of 1954 in southern Iraq. The "earth" in Genesis 7:17-18 refers to the ground/land in the flooded region, not the entire planet.

But majority of Christians don't agree with the "regionalists" claims:

First if it's just a local flood then how can it cover the highest mountains (Gen. 7:20). For example, the record emphasizes that "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven . . . and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19,20) with the waters of the Flood. This must have included Mount Ararat on which Noah's Ark landed, and which is now 17,000 feet high. This was no local flood!

Secondly, and even more significant is the covenant which God made after the Flood. God promised, "Never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Gen. 9:11).

According to Peter, "And did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly." (II Peter 2:5).

The apostle Peter believed in a worldwide hydraulic cataclysm. "Whereby the world [Greek, kosmos] that then was, being overflowed [Greek, katakluzo] with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). The "world" was defined in the previous verse as "the heavens . . . and the earth." Peter also said that "God . . . spared not the old world, but saved Noah . . . bringing in the flood [Greek, kataklusmos] upon the world of the ungodly" (II Peter 2:5). Note also that these words katakluzo and kataklusmos (from which we derive our English word "cataclysm") are applied exclusively in the New Testament to the great Flood of Noah's day.

Peter says "a world" or cosmos as affected. Genesis 7:21-24 continues: "So ALL FLESH that was moving upon the earth expired, among the flying creatures and among the domestic animals and among the wild beasts and among ALL the swarms that were swarming upon the earth, and ALL MANKIND. EVERYTHING in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, ALL that were on the dry ground, died. Thus he wiped out EVERY EXISTING THING that was on the surface of the ground, from man to beast, to moving animal and to flying creature of the heavens, and they were wiped off the earth; and ONLY Noah and those who were with him in the ark kept on surviving. And the waters continued overwhelming the earth a hundred and fifty days."

The writer of Hebrews believe it as a worldwide flood.

"By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the [b]world[/b] and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith." (Hebrews 11:7).

So maybe we can ask :

1. Why would Noah have to gather animals if the flood was local and these species would either escape or already lived in other regions?

2. Why is the Biblical account written the way it is if this flood was local?

The issue regarding the hebrew word "erets"

"Regionalists" claim: Nowhere in these verses mentioned can you find a hint of a ‘worldwide flood’. The flood was ‘upon the earth’. All throughout theses verses the word earth was used. The earth or ‘erets’ in Hebrew, means:

‘erets

eh’-rets

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world. (Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., 1890.)

The word ‘erets’ may mean ‘partitively, a land, a country, a field, a ground, etc. Notice Genesis 1:10, which says;

“And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

The dry land that God caused to appear on the surface of the waters which He called “seas”, He called earth — ‘erets’! Note that the ‘earth’ here does not include the seas.
erets - The word eret means a lot of things, but the root word means "firm".

land, earth
earth
whole earth (as opposed to a part) earth (as opposed to heaven) earth (inhabitants) land
country, territory district, region tribal territory piece of ground land of Canaan, Israel inhabitants of land Sheol, land without return, (under) world city (-state) ground, surface of the earth
ground soil (in phrases)
people of the land space or distance of country (in measurements of distance) level or plain country land of the living end(s) of the earth (almost wholly late in usage)
lands, countries 1e often in contrast to Canaan

Does the word "eret" only means a regional land? Nope. It can mean the whole planet Earth.

In Genesis 1:1, 2 the word "earth" here is `erets (possibly, "firm") and may mean merely "land" though in some places in may refer to the world or the globe. The Septuagint version (LXX) used for the word gen (or, ge) to translate `erets. From this word we get geology and geography.

The idea of a worldwide flood did not come from the Bible, but from people who do not understand its language.

Let me emphasize that even Jesus believe in a worldwide flood.
"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24:37-39).

So does that mean Peter, Paul and Jesus doesn't understand the scriptures? Is it only these "regionalists" who can understand it?

Ashes to Ashes...dust to dust.

2009-01-19T17:15:00.005+08:00

Ok…Big deal.
So the Bible says that we are all created from dirt. If we die, we return from dirt. And that suppose to prove the Bible’s so-called “scientific foreknowledge”.

Really?

Well guess what…Every living thing in this planet turns into dust. If your dog dies it turns to dust. So does your neighbor’s cat, the fish in the aquarium, oysters, elephants, a newt, a gecko – and even a petunia.

Yet you won’t see any word in the Bible that says they too are made from the “dust from the ground”.

It’s just natural.

Decomposition is a process where an object is separated into its simplest constituent parts. Since living things are made up of organic molecules like water, iron, a lot of carbon, calcium…etc. – these molecules will someday return to Earth.

Made from clay.

The Torah never said that God created man from "dust". It says that man was created from wet clay.

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים

וַֽיְהִי הָֽאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃

(v'yyitzer YHWH 'Elohim 'et ha'adam 'aphar min ha'adamah ) - Genesis 2:7

The word "dust" was translated by the Greek writers (which is very uninspired by the way) from the Hebrew word "aphar", which means "clay, earth, mud, ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish. ." So let see...since maraming meaning ang word na aphar, which word is right?

Don't ask me...Let's ask Job.
Job 10:9 - “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?”

How about Isaiah?
"Woe to those who hide deep from the LORD their counsel, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, 'Who sees us? Who knows us?' You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, 'He did not make me;' or the thing formed say of him who formed it, 'He has no understanding'"? (Isaiah 29:15-16)

Still not convinced? Let us ask Paul.
“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Romans 9:20-21)

Now...do other religions other than Judaism and Christianity teaches that man is formed from clay?

From the middle Paleolithic culture, there are evidences of clay use. Clay was a crutial raw material for the manufacture of utensils for daily use. It is also use to create container for storage. Man has been using clay to create his pots and pans. He use it to create bricks for his home. He even use clay to create an image and likeness of himself and call them gods. So it is not a suprise that the uses of clay has been incorporated to his mythology.

In the creation story of the A-Hsi (a small tribe of the Yi people in China) it is said that man came from Yellow clay. T'oh-lo and Sha-lo First took the clay With which they made man's body. Then, using the black coal and the white mud They formed man's eyes. The woman was then fashioned from the mans’ rib.

One of the clearest Babylonian descriptions of a deity creating man out of clay is preserved in the Gilgamesh Epic 4: . . . "the Goddess Aruru nipped off clay, cast it upon the ground, the hero Enkidu she built." (Amiran)

In ancient Mesapotamian myths, man is made from clay. According to the myth, The Mother Goddess:

Mix to a core the clay

from the Basement of Earth

just abovew the Abzu -

and shape it into the form of

a core.

The term "adama" (after which the name Adam was coined) means "red clay".

The Fon of Dahomey (people living in the south of Benin (called Dahomey until 1975) and adjacent parts of Togo) believe that after he created and ordered the universe, Mawu formed the first human beings from clay and water. But clay was in short supply in those days, and so when men died, Mawu took their bodies to make new men.

Native origin stories in America, and elsewhere, frequently feature clay and mud in the creation of the world and of people, and of course in the invention of ceramics. In the Blackfeet of Montana, the Old Man created the first woman and her child from clay ( Blackfoot Lodge Tales pp.137-138).

Just wondering...Does the myth of humans came from clay only reflect the idea that ancient civilization used it to build potteries and their brick houses?

More on Bible Contradiction

2009-01-09T16:49:00.003+08:00

Christians believe that the Bible came from God. That means it is divine. It is said that God gave the revelation and inspiration to the human writers – not only in concepts but in the very words used to express these concepts.

According to the Lausanne Covenant of 1974 stated in part, We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirely as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Section 2 The Authority and Power Of the Bible). This statement of faith is agreed by many Evangelical Christian group from over 150 countries.

The doctrine of inspiration is found in the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:12) and the Greek word “theopheustos” found in 2 Tim. 3:16 literally means ‘breathe out by God’ making the Bible the word of God in human language.

But different Christians sects understand “God’s inspiration” differently. In those who believe in the plenary inspiration, the entire text of the Bible is equaled to God, but not everything is believe to come from God because of human quotes, satanic lies and erroneous views of false prophets that can also be found in the pages of the Bible.

Verbal inspiration in the other hand means that the Bible in its original words, from Genesis to Revelation, is the exact records of the mind and will of God.

Now that we have an idea of how Christian defines ‘inspiration’ when it comes to the Bible, we’re now going to talk about the subject of Bible contradiction.

The word contradiction has 2 meanings: 1.) It is the opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas and 2.) It is a statement that is necessarily false. Inerrancy proponents often refer to the Bible's perfect harmony and consistency of theme as compelling evidence of verbal inspiration. But if you read the Bible, it shows otherwise. The Bible is a literature of contradictory statements and apparent disagreements, which are to be expected in any writing formulated over approximately 1,500 years by 40 or 50 different writers, few of whom seemed to be precisely concerned with what the others had penned.

Now here’s a good example.

2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

In page 173 of When Skeptics Ask, Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks appealled to “transmission error” in the problem between 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9.

But remember, an error is an error. There are no excuses when you are affirming the biblical doctrine of inerrancy.

Here are other examples:

1.) II Kings 9; 10:1-30 and Hosea 1:4 Why would Yahweh want to punish the house of Jehu for what was done at Jezreel if all Jehu had done there was "that which is right in mine (Yahweh's) eyes"?

2.) I Chronicles 2:13-15 in listing the sons of Jesse says that David was the seventh. Yet I Samuel 16:10-11 states that David was Jesse's eighth son.

3.) Joshua 17:18 promised the Israelites that they would "drive out the Canaanites though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong." Yet Judges 1:19 states that Judah's assault against Canaanites in the lowlands failed because they were equipped with iron chariots: "And Jehovah was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

4.) How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

5.) How many were the children of Adin?
(a) Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
(b) Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)

6.) Jesus descended from which son of David?
(a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
(b) Nathan (Luke3: 31)

7.) Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
(b) Hell (Luke 3:23)

8.) Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?
(a) Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
(b) Rhesa (Luke 3:27) but the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i. Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v. Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

9.) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12)

10.) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24)

These are just few examples folks! You can see more on my blog in the article about Bible contradictions and you can also visit my article about some scientific errors in the Bible.

To really understand the Bible we must recognized what the Bible really is. The Bible is a work of literary art. It is not divine in origin or a word of a god. It is susceptible to errors and contradiction vulnerable to criticism.

Until next time.

John the Atheist

The Truth About The Bible - by Robert Green Ingersoll

2009-01-09T10:08:00.001+08:00

"Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself." - Robert Green Ingersoll

The Truth About the Bible (1894) by Robert Green Ingersoll

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Christianity Religion art bible

Contradictions In The Bible

2009-01-09T09:49:00.002+08:00

Here are some lists of Bible contradictions I found in the Internet. I think some of these contradictions have been addressed by some Christian sites, there there are still more to be found.

The creation story
GENESIS 1: The Seven Days Creation Story

Day 1 - Light and darkness: day and night
Day 2 - A "vault" separating the 'waters' that make up the oceans and the (blue) sky
Day 3 - Earth, followed by plants
Day 4 - The Sun, Moon and stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5 - Animals
Day 6 - Humans (both sexes at the same time - many of them, apparently)
Day 7 - A day of rest

Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created.

GENESIS 2: The Story of Adam in Eden

First, God made earth and heaven.
Then he placed Adam on an otherwise lifeless Earth.
Next he made plants grow in Eden, including the trees of life and of knowledge of good and evil.
Then he placed Adam in this garden.
Only then did he create animals.
Finally, he made Eve from Adam's rib. (The rest is history - or so literalists would say.)

The current scholarly hypothesis as to the Pentateuch's origins is that the divergent stories of different Hebrew tribes were put together at a comparatively late stage. GENESIS 1 is thought to embody the 'Priestly' tradition, GENESIS 2 the 'Yahwistic' (so-called because God is called 'Yahweh', rather than being referred to as 'Elohim', which is a plural literally translated as "the Gods").

Should we own slaves?
LEVITICUS 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."
GENESIS 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
EXODUS 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservants do."
JOEL 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
LUKE 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
COLOSSIANS 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."
vs.

ISAIAH 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . . break every yoke."
MATTHEW 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

In the American civil war, churches cited the numerous pro-slavery verses in the Bible as justification. And indeed, according to the Bible, slavery is clearly justified as there are only a very few, highly ambiguous, anti-slavery quotes and many emphatic statements in favour of slavery. The word servant comes from the original Greek word for slave - this is just some creative translation.

Should we steal?
EXODUS 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
LEVITICUS 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
vs.

EXODUS 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
EXODUS 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
LUKE 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

God good to all, or just a few?
PSALMS 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JEREMIAH 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

How long was Jesus in the tomb?
MATTHEW 12:40 has Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and MARK 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-resurrection narratives have "on the third day".

What was Jesus given to drink?
MATTHEW 27:34 says vinegar. MARK 15:23 says it was wine with myrhh.

War or Peace?
EXODUS 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROMANS 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Is strong drink OK?
See PROVERBS 31:6,7 But... see JOHN 2:11-11

For or against me?
MATTHEW 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(ie. against)

MARK 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(ie. for)

LUKE 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(ie. for)

Which first--beasts or man?
GENESIS 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GENESIS 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GENESIS 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

GENESIS 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PROVERBS 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECCLESIASTES 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that in- creaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 CORINTHIANS1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Should good deeds be publicised or not?
MATTHEW 5:16 says "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

MATTHEW 6:3-4, though, says "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACTS 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

ACTS 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

Who killed Saul?
SAMUEL 1 31:4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

SAMUEL 2 1:15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.

When will the second coming come?
MATTHEW 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

MARK 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUKE 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

See also 1 THESSALONIANS 4:15-18

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 KINGS 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOHN 3:13)

Is (human or other) sacrifice the way to go?
Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."
vs.

GENESIS 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
EXODUS 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."
JUDGES 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."
2 SAMUEL 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."
HEBREWS 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God."
1 CORINTHIANS 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."

Is God omnipotent?
JEREMIAH 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?
MATTHEW 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
vs.

JUDGES 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Did Michal have children?
II SAMUEL 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."
But...

II SAMUEL 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."

When was Jesus born?
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). Herod died in March of 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born BEFORE that time. According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This census took place in 6 AD and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
22 in 2 KINGS 8:26

42 in 2 CHRONICLES 22:2

How old was Jehoiachin when he became King?
8 in CHRONICLES 36:9

18 in 2 KINGS 24:8

The number of animals in the ark
GENESIS 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GENESIS 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Hares
LEVITICUS 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

This may not contradict anything the Bible says, but it does clash with reality - hares don't chew cud.

The shape of the earth
ISAIAH 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

MATTHEW 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

As everyone now knows, the earth is spherical, so you cannot see its entire surface from any one place. Even the kingdoms the Bible's authors knew of could not have been seen from "an exceeding high mountain."

Should we swear an oath?
HEBREWS 6:13-17 says "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath." But JAMES 5:12 clearly says ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

The sins of the father
ISAIAH 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEUTERONOMY 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Was Jesus a peaceful man?
JOHN 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."
ACTS 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."
LUKE 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."
vs.

MATTHEW 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
LUKE 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Does God change his mind?
MALACHI 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
EZEKIEL 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
JAMES 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
vs.

EXODUS 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
GENESIS 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
JONAH 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

How are we saved?
"For by grace are we saved through faith...not of works" EPHESIANS 2:8-9.

"...and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works" REVELATION 20:13.

"Ye see then that by works a man is justified, not by faith only. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" JAMES 2:26

What happened to Judas?
MATTHEW 27:5 states that he threw down his silver, ran from the temple, and hanged himself. ACTS 1:16-19 states, however, that he bought some land with his money, and that he had a fall, causing him "to burst open in the middle" so that his "bowels gushed out. And it became known to all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akaldama, that is, Field of Blood."

Jesus' last words on the cross
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" [PSALMS 22:1] ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (MATTHEW 27:46-50)
But . . .
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (LUKE 23:46)
But . . .
"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (JOHN 19:30)

This is clearly a folk legend - the operative word being legend - in the making.

Is God cruel, destructive and unmerciful or good, kind and merciful?
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JEREMIAH 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAMES 5:11)

"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 CHRONICLES 16:34)

"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSALMS 145:9)

"God is love." (1 JOHN 4:16)

"And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it." (JOEL 3:8)

From: A Few Bible Contradiction by Thomas Ash

And here's a PDF file of 101 Contradictions found in the Bible.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Christianity Religion bible In

The Bible Unmasked

2009-01-09T09:42:00.000+08:00

The first edition of The Bible Unmasked consists of 250 copies, printed on special paper, with gold top pages, and bound in limp leather with title stamped in gold. Each copy is numbered and autographed by the author. This is the first general edition.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Religion Christianity bible atheism

Is The Bible Scientific?

2008-12-30T09:49:00.004+08:00

Who says that the Bible is a scientific book? Most fundamentalist Christians say so. I guess it has something to do with the inerrancy doctrine.

If the Bible is inspired by an omniscient God, then even in the field of science and mathematics the Bible must be correct. Even the “Sorianista” (the followers of Eliseo Soriano’s sect) believe that God is the inventor of science…whatever that means.

It’s not the atheist’s job to prove whether the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. Hey! It’s the Christians who make the positive claim of infallibility.

But like other ancient literature, the Bible is prone to criticism and like other so-called sacred books; it’s only the adherents’ claim that the Bible is a word of a certain god or is it a product of a supernatural being.

Evangelical Christians claim that the scientific errors of the Bible are not errors because nothing is impossible to God. It may look like an error to a skeptic but since God is beyond natural laws and empirical science, God can bend the rules. Remember, God is the one who created natural law in the first place.

I think this is an absurd explanation, yet I have seen books, websites and Christian pamphlets that suggest this explanation in dealing with scientific inaccuracies of the Bible. You see, these people will be adamant to justify the doctrine of biblical inerrancy to the point of looking foolish. For them God can create a square triangle or a married bachelor – without further explanation, just to save their faith for further scrutiny. Faith is the motivation not knowledge and fanaticism is the outcome.

But not all Christians agree with such reasoning.

Don Stewart responded to those who question the Bible's scientific qualifications in his book “Answers to Tough Questions”, “The Bible is not a textbook on science. Its purpose is not to explain in technical terms the technical data of the natural world, but to explain God's purpose and relation to man, to deal with spiritual things. It is definitely not a technical textbook for scientists. The descriptions which the Bible gives concerning nature are neither scientific nor unscientific, but phrased in words that are non-technical and often general, so that even the common reader can follow the thought. This does not at all mean the statements are incorrect." (P. 104)

In the TIME Magazine interview (January 15, 2007), Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the United State National Genome Research Institute and the author of the book The Language of God – A scientist presents evidence of belief said, “There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe’s age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically it is not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It is not intended as a science text book. It is intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous.”

But still, most Christians persist of making their faith look ridiculous.

So how scientific is the Bible?

What Christians advocate as “scientific” has two components. The first is to begin with unchallengeable statements which are Bible stories. Then they will try to find, in carefully selected natural phenomena, alleged corroborations of those stories.
The second is to look for any inconsistencies or controversy, no matter how trivial or evanescent, in real science and present it as proof of the validity of the Bible stories.

Real science proceeds in the opposite direction. Scientists use the result of observations to construct theories that support further observation.

Now let see how scientific the Bible really is.

The number one problem in the Genesis narrative is that Christians can’t even agree to themselves if the word “day” means a 24-hour period or a thousand years. Evangelicals agree to a 24-hour “day”. Young Earth Creationists (as they are known) always use misquoted reports, edited information, out dated research and books and will even scoff on carbon dating technique, accusing it of inaccuracies just to squeeze their belief.

I even saw a booklet from The Radio Pulpit, saying that dinosaurs and humans once live together. Talk about the Flintstones!

There also those who believe that the “day” in the creation story mean a thousand years. This is also known as the “The day-age theory” and they are known as Progressive Creationists. They don’t base it on geological finding…Nope; they base their interpretation from Psalms 90:4 and 2Peter 3:8.

That’s the difference between religion and science. Science base it’s knowledge from the evidence that were collected while religion interprets the belief first and will fashion its doctrine to fit the evidence.

Let us see more “Genesis science” and I will just skip the issues about “talking snakes” and trees that bear fruits of “life” and “knowledge”. Such objects are obviously mythological in nature.

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Is the Bible suggesting that the entire universe is made up of water? This kind of thinking was very common in ancient times. Even the Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus thinks that water was the first principle of life and the material world

Genesis 1:3-5 vs. Genesis 1:14-19
It seems the Genesis narrative is implying that planet Earth is older than all the heavenly bodies in the universe. Earth was created in an empty heaven in the first day and the rest of all the planets and stars are created in the 4th day.

Now if we’re going to believe that Earth is older than all the stuffs in the universe, we’re going to have a problem proving this. The distances between stars are measured in light years. Now in one second, a beam of light travels 186,000 miles. So in 8 minutes, light have traveled on a distance from the Sun to the Earth. We can say that the Sun is 8 light minutes away from Earth. In a year, light crosses nearly 10 trillion kilometers of intervening space. That is one light years.

The nearest star from planet Earth next to the Sun (our Sun is a medium size star) is Proxima Centauri which is 4.26 light years away. This means that the light from Proxima Centauri will reach Earth at 4.26 years.

The Andromeda Galaxy is 2 million light years away. The Galactic Center of the Milky Way (our galaxy) is about 28,000 light years away.

Given all that figures, how can be the universe be a mere 8,000 years old? According to Bishop James Ussher and John Lightfoot, God created the universe on October 23, 2004 BC. If light has been traveling at such distance in time and space…for about billions of years, then how is it possible that Earth (which is 6,000 old according to Evangelical Christianity be older than the universe?

Now what if we believe that Earth is about hmmm…a million years old according to Progressive creationists, can we justify that Planet Earth is still older than the universe? Let’s talk about the age of rocks and not the Rock of Ages. The oldest rock sample that was found here on Earth is about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years old. Oldest rock samples returned from the moon are 4.4 to 4.5 billion years old and the oldest meteorites are about 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.

Knowledge of the Hubble constant and of the matter and vacuum density parameters allows us to estimate the age of the universe. Using a technique where we calculate the age of the stars, we can at least have a good approximation of the age of the universe.

There are two main ways of estimating ages of old stars: Heavy element abundances due to radioactive decay and lower luminosities.

A recent estimate places the age of the Universe at approximately 12.5 to 16 billion years old.

Genesis 1:3
“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”

There are a lot of speculations regarding Genesis 1:3. Some Christian sects reason out that “light” refers to radiation emitted by the Big Bang, while other says that it is some kind of cosmic radiation. Other suggests that the “light” is a metaphor that means order or law. Evangelical Christians suggest it’s magic.

Notice that the passage in Gen. 1:3 refers to a visible light. (Gen. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good...) so we can discard the radiation presumption and the metaphor. Christian magical explanation is not scientific so we can discard it as well.

Genesis 1:4-5
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Does this only refer to the terrestrial world or the whole universe? There isn’t any evidence we could find to say that the whole universe has an interval of being dark in a certain period of time and being bright in a certain period of time. In the vastness of space, distribution of lightwave scatters. Visible wavelength becomes shorted. That’s why it’s dark in outer space.

So we come to the problem of “day and night”. A “day” refers to the period of the interval represented by one rotation of the planet around a light source, in our case, the Sun. So if God created the Sun in the forth day, then what causes day and night in planet Earth? How could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no Sun to mark them?

When God created light and divided it, in what planetary rotation did he base his “day”? Remember that Earth still have no Sun to rotate in 24 hours. Also, other planets in the Solar System have its own “day”: Mercury = 59 days, Venus = 243 days, Mars = 24 Hour and 37 minutes, Jupiter = 9.8 hours, Saturn = 10.2 hours, Uranus = 17.24 hours and Neptune = 16.05 days.

The Solid Vault (Genesis 1:6-8)
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The ancient Hebrews believed in a three-story universe filled with water. That is quite common with ancient Canaanite mythology. The word “tehom” (See: Job 26: 5-7, Jer. 4:33 and Is. 40:17.23) means the deep and cognate with the Sumerian/Babylonian “Tiamat” – the salt-water ocean.

This is the reason why in the Genesis myth, the Elohim divided the waters above and the waters below with a solid vault (raqia), which the English translators of the Bible referred as “firmament”. Evidence of this solid vault can also be found in Amos 9:6 as the word “aquddah” was used by its author (see also: Isaiah 40:22 and Psalms 104:2). The common poetic image of this “Hebrew astronomy” is a dome or tent covering a circle coin.

Evidence of such ancient astronomy belief system can also be found in an extra biblical source. In Nachmanides commentary of the torah he quotes from the ancient rabbis, “The heavens were in fluid form on the first day, and on the second day they solidified. Another ancient rabbi said, “Let the firmament become like a plate, just as you say in Exodus 39:3. Jewish Bible scholars agree that raqia suggest a firm vault or dome which held the stars and provided a boundary beyond which the divine dwelt.” (Nachmanides (Raban) Commentary of the Torah Vol. 1 pp 33-36)

The Hebrews taught that the heavenly bodies (stars, the Sun and the moon) are all inside this solid dome (Gen. 1:7). There wasn’t any idea of outer space at that time. This solid dome or “firmament” even has windows, flood gates or trap doors to let rain water or hail inside (Gen. 7:11, 8:2, Job 38:22, Psalm 104:3, 13). Beyond this dome is where the primeval waters are located. Remember…And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Even the writers of the New Testament believe this ancient astronomy. See Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:13-14.

Hey, check out these chapters and verses in the Bible to know what I mean: Job 38:22, Psalm 104:3, 13 and Genesis 11:4.

Well…humans have invented the rockets, have flown as far as the moon, Mars and Jupiter. Have already send space stations and a space mission out of our galaxy…never had it hit any solid vault between Earth atmosphere and the exosphere.

Genesis 1:11-12
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So God created the plants first before he created the Sun (Gen. 1:16).

The booklet “Is the Bible Really the Word of God?’ by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania seems to imply that plants can live without the Sun by lightless photosynthesis (According to the booklet, a report from Science News letter of August 25, 1962, under the headline “Lightless Photosynthesis” Kurio Tagawa and Daniel Arnon succeeded in eliminating the need for light in a key energy-transforming reaction of the photosynthetic process in spinach leaves.)

Remember that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in “Progressive Creation” so they have to justify that plants have live in planet for more than a thousand years without the Sun. But such justification produces dishonest answers. First, the Bible was quite clear on this, God brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, and these plants all required photosynthesis to live. They got green leaves remember? And second, we don’t have any evidence that somewhere between a million years ago, these plants (grasses, herbs and trees) does not use the Sun’s light to the process of photosynthesis.

I also wonder who created the bacteria, fungi, molds, ferns and certain aquatic plants. They seem to be left out of God’s list.

Genesis 1: 14-17
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

The moon does not have a light of its own; it only reflects light from the Sun. Also it seem to absurd to think that God spends a day making the Sun and the moon (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, after a hard day's work, and almost as a late addition, he creates trillions of stars. Speaking of stars, why are only a tiny fraction of stars visible from earth? Under the best conditions, no more than five thousand stars are visible from earth with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies. Yet this verse says that God put the stars in the firmament "to give light" to the earth.

Genesis 1:29-30
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

I will not talk about evolution. There is really no need for that since there are a lot of website in the Internet that deal with the subject. But I can recommend The Panda’s Thumb and Talk Origin . The have good articles regarding Evolution that you can read.

According to one of the articles in this Christian propaganda pamphlet called The Radio Pulpit (Volume 45 September 2000 Number 9), “ Notice that God declared creation “very good” only after he first announced that all moving, breathing, feeling creatures would eat plants not each other.” (p. 42) In the same page it continues, “You may ask, “What about the big, sharp teeth of so many animals? Doesn’t that prove they are always meat eaters?” No, it only proves that they have big, sharp teeth.”

That what happened when a person doesn’t read elementary biology text books.

Evangelical Christians think that there was once a time when there were no carnivores. Well…that was correct on a micro level…on one-celled animals but not with lions, cheetahs, sharks, wasps, crocodiles and piranhas!

Herbivores and carnivores differ not only on “big teeth” as the Christian pamphlet suggests. They also differ in activities. Carnivores run faster in comparison with their body weight and the energy comes from protein which is in meat. Also, meat generates more body heat. That’s why reptiles are meat eaters.

In all mammalian carnivores the jaw articulation is arranged in such a manner that movement is limited to vertical hinge motions and transverse sliding. The temporal muscle dominates the jaw musculature, forming at least one-half of the total mass of the jaw muscles. In all modern carnivores the brain is large and the cerebral hemispheres are highly developed.

Bears (the sample used by The Radio Pulpit) are omnivores – they eat both meat (mostly salmons) berries and herbs. Panda’s teeth are built in cracking bamboos but its form is quite different from a Tasmanian devil or a crocodile. Frankly speaking, there aren’t any scientific evidences that support a theory that modern carnivorous animals were once herbivores. The earliest fossil records are early Paleocene, but the earliest well-represented material comes from the middle Paleocene of North America. During the Paleocene and Eocene the stem carnivorans or miacoids underwent considerable diversification in both the Old and New World. At the end of Eocene and beginning of Oligocene time throughout the Northern Hemisphere, a dramatic change took place within the Carnivora; this was the appearance of primitive representatives of modern carnivore families.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants on the earth at one time.
No evidence exists to supports this assertion.

“Flood Geology”

By a literal interpretation of the Bible, the worldwide deluge occurred in the year 2348 BCE. According to the story, the only humans to survive the flood were members of Noah's own family, who rode in the Ark with Noah and the animals.

Christians believe that the Ark story is not a myth. Fundamentalist Christians believe there is evidence of a universal flood according to the Bible since Genesis 10:32 declares that the whole world was populated after the flood from the eight who were saved. This would not have been true if those outside the local area had not drowned. Peter refers to the salvation of only eight (1 Peter 3:20).

The story of the flood is a common mythology to many cultures around the world. Norman Giesler in his book, “When Skeptics Asks” assume that this is a proof of the flood really did happened. Other Christian uses the same reason. But two geophysicists, William Ryan and Walter Pitman have discovered evidence of a giant flood of epic proportion that happened 7,600 years ago in the region known as the Black Sea. Base on the findings, when this Mediterranean river overflowed, a catastrophic flood destroyed those living on its ancient shore lines. Naturally, ancient people assume that the flood had indeed covered the whole earth. Those who survived the deluge carried to them the story with their culture as far as Western Europe, Central Asia, China, Egypt and the Persian Gulf region via migration. The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Deluge of Ziusudra and Noah’s Ark are all mythical tales passed down from generation to generation commemorating this epic event.

But is the story scientifically accurate? Let see:

Genesis 6:16
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above;....

How could so many creatures breathe with only one small opening which was closed for at least 190 days--150 days plus an additional 40 days (Gen. 8:3-6)?

Genesis 6:17
"I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die."

Gen. 7:4 supports this point, "...and every substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Yet, how would a flood destroy animals living in the waters, especially those living in great depths, such as whales, porpoises, giant squids, tube worms , deep-sea crabs dolphins and all animals entirely underwater?

How did animals that are restricted to certain parts of the earth get to the Ark? If you have knowledge of different animals living on different geographic conditions you will know that it’s really not a feasible idea. Tamaraws, kangaroos, polar bears, koalas, kiwis and many others would have to have crossed vast oceans just to reach the location of Noah and the Ark. Slow animals from other continents--snails, sloths, turtles, and so forth--must have started their journey to the Ark before the earth was created!

How did many of the animals withstand climatic changes? Many of those from Polar Regions could not have withstood the heat of the Middle East.

How were animals prevented from killing their natural prey?

How the Ark was kept sanitary, since there was only one window and one door is beyond any scientific guess.

After being released, how did they return to their respective regions of the world? How did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?

The vegetation which many animals eat only grows in certain parts of the world. How was it brought to the Ark for storage? For example, how did Noah gathered the eucalyptus leaves which are the only food of the Koala bear?

If Christians denounce the theory of evolution , then explain it scientifically how tremendous variety of animals in the world today if only two of every species--two dogs, two cats, two elephants, two snakes, and so forth--entered and leave the Ark?

Genesis 8:11
"And the dove came in to him in the evening; and lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off."

It's difficult to believe a dove could have found an olive leaf to freshly pluck in a world that had been submerged for nearly a year.

If the waters covered the Earth for a year, was the water salty or fresh? How fresh water fishes (or sea water fishes) survived?

Gen. 8:5 and 8:13 state the Flood covered the earth and its mountains. If so, where did all the water go?

How were the animals preserved after leaving the Ark? There was no grass except such as had been submerged for a year. How were the herbivores taken care of until the earth was again clothed with vegetation? There were no animals to be devoured by the carnivores, except those which were on the Ark. From whence came their food?

If all your answers to the following questions is that “God can do the impossible”, then you are automatically telling me that the Bible is not a scientific book.

Other “scientific” Bible verses

Genesis 9:2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

According to this verse, all animals fear humans. Although it is true that many do, it is also true that some do not. Sharks and the Komodo dragon, for example, are generally much less afraid of us than we are of them.

Genesis 9:13
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Does that mean that there were no rainbows prior to the flood? Rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed or it appears that the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time. You call that “scientific”?

Genesis 30:37-39
And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of genetics by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats. This reminds me of the silly superstitions and old wife’s tale here in the Philippines. They believe that when a pregnant woman always sees a face of an ugly man, her child will be as ugly as the ugly man’s face. Or if a pregnant woman eats a certain food, it will have an effect the look or characteristic of her child…for example, if the mother always eats chocolate, chances are her child will be darker and if she always drinks milk, her child will have a fair complexion. This belief has nothing to do with the science of genetics.

Leviticus 11:5-6
And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:7
Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

The Bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud." Physiologically, a ruminant is a mammal of the order Artiodactyla that digests plant-based food by initially softening it within the animal's first stomach, known as the rumen, then regurgitating the semi-digested mass, now known as cud, and chewing it again. Leporidae (Rabbits, coneys and hares) are not ruminants.

Leviticus 11:20
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you

Name me a bird (fowl) that has four legs.

Leviticus 11:23
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Name me a “flying creeping thing” with four legs.

The Geocentric Solar System
Joshua 10:12-13
The spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Here’s the perfect verse that picture the idea of the Bible when it come to the Solar System - a geocentric universe. Ancient Hebrew believed that the Earth is in the center of the solar system and all the heavenly bodies (Sun, moon and stars) rotate around it. According to Bible astronomy, planet Earth is stable and it doesn’t move (See: Job 38:4-6, Job 9:6, 1 Chron.16:30, 2 Kings 20:11) and the Sun moves around it (Psalms 19:5-6).

The geocentric model originated in Babylon and it’s connected with astrology. Astrology is a pseudoscience - a claim in the absence of good evidence. It is a faith.

A Polish Catholic cleric named Nicholas Copernicus introduce the heliocentric model but the Roman Catholic Church place his writings on their list of forbidden books from 1616 to 1835.

The Italian scientist, Galileo Galilei concluded through observations that the Sun did not rotate around the Earth but rather the Earth rotate around the Sun. The Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant under threat of torture. Not until December 28, 1991 when Pope John Paul II cautiously admitted officially that Galileo has been right and that the Church, as well as the Bible, had been wrong about the heliocentric model of the Solar System.

Thanks to the Laws of Planetary Motion of Johannes Kepler, we now have a better idea of a heliocentric model in which planet Earth, just like other planets in the Solar System, revolves around the Sun.

The Flat Earth
Another ancient and unscientific belief is that the Earth is flat. The Bible also promotes such archaic idea.

Ezekiel 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

Daniel 4:7-8 "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth."

The Greek mathematician/philosopher Pythagoras was the first person in the history to deduce that the Earth is a sphere (Not a flat circle that the Bible pictured).

Anaximander (of Miletus) (611–547 BCE) Ionian (Greek) natural philosopher: suggested Earth was a curved body in space. Realizing that the Earth’s surface was curved, he believed it to be cylindrical (with its axis east to west); and he was probably the first Greek to map the whole known world. He visualized the Earth as poised in space.

In the Greek city of Alexandria, around the 3rd century BCE., the Greek astronomer/philosopher Eratosthenes discovered that the surface of planet Earth is curve not flat, just by using sticks, his eyes, feet and brain, plus a taste for experiment. He also become the first person on this planet to measure the size of a planet – a feat not even the biblical “wise” character Solomon and his god has done.

Christopher Columbus, using Eratosthenes’ estimates of the circumference of the Earth proved that the Earth is a sphere. There were no “ends” of the Earth, no pillars and no corners. What Columbus discovered was the New World and an easy route to Asia.

Judges 16:17-22 Samson loses his strength as a result of having his head shaved. So where in the science of physiology says that human hair is the source of a person’s strength. Physical strength is in the muscular system. Human hair consist largely of dead, keratinized cells!

1Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2
This verse implies that the value of π is 3. (The actual value is approximately 3.14159.)
Since the molten sea was round with a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits, we know that the biblical value of π is 3. (The actual value is approximately 3.14159.)

The Swiss-German physicist Johann Lambert (1728–1777) made the discoveries concerning the mathematical constant π. If you don’t know, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is what we called Pi, also known as Archimedes’ constant. Its approximate value is 3.1419 but, being an irrational number, it can’t be written as a terminating or recurring decimal. For the record, the first 100 digits of π are: 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679.

Job 26:11
The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

There aren’t any pillars that support heaven.

Job 39:13-16
Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear;

Ostriches are not cruel and stupid birds who abandon their eggs to die after laying them, as these verses imply. The verse reflect more of a traditional belief on desert dwellers that a scientific insight about ostriches.

Modern biologists know better than what the "scientifically insightful" author of Job mistakenly thought about the ostrich. Both Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica, describe ostriches as very caring parents. The female lays her eggs on the ground, but so do many other species of birds. The eggs are not abandoned to the heat of the sand, but in the female's absence, the male incubates the nest. The male scoops out a hollow for the eggs, which are incubated by the female during the day and the male at night. When the young hatch, they are given watchful care by their mother. As a biological creature, the ostrich has survived for thousands of years, so obviously it is a successful procreator. Its labor is not in vain, as the passage above incorrectly declares.

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

The Moon doesn’t shine its own light. Just like planets, the Moon only reflects its light from the Sun. By the way, around 450 BCE in Athens, Greece Anaxagoras was the first person to state clearly that the Moon shines by reflective light.

Daniel 8:10
And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

To Daniel, stars are small objects that can fall from the sky and then be "stamped upon." (See: Revelation 6:13)

Proverbs 6:6-8
Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:
Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,
Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.

Proverbs 6:7-8 described the ant as an industrious creature, "which having no chief, overseer, or ruler provides her bread in the summer, and gathers her food in harvest."

Etymologists disagrees with this biblical verse. Unknown to the writer of the Book of Proverbs, ants (Formicidae) leave the nest, forage, and feed the queen (they have a queen); they rapidly expand the nest and care for the next brood. The founding queen continues to lay eggs and remains in the nest. When the colony reaches a certain size the queen lays fertilized (diploid) eggs, which receive a special diet and treatment, and will develop into reproductive females.

The Existence of Dragons
"...it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls."—Isaiah 34:13.
"...the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."—Psalm 91:13.

One of the most universal monster myths is that of the dragon. The awesome, reptilelike beasts appear in the folklore of nearly every country. The mythical dragon is described as a reality in over a dozen additional Bible verses, including Psalm 74:13; Deuteronomy 32:33 and Micah 1:8.

Mythical Creatures.
"And owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces."—Isaiah 13:21-22.
"Out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent."—Isaiah 14:29

The Bible contains innumerable other references to fanciful creatures, such as the Cockatrice—a serpent hatched from the egg of a cock whose mere glance could kill its enemies (Isaiah 11:8); Satyrs—creatures that were half man and half goat or horse (Isaiah 13:21); Fiery serpents (Deuteronomy 8:15) and Flying serpents (Isaiah 30:6).

Scientific Absurdities of the New Testament

Matthew 13:31-32
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Mark 4:31
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:

The writers of the Gospels were incorrect when they say that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. Orchids have the smallest seed according to the Guinness Book of World Records. Epiphytic orchids seed weighs in at approximately 0.0000008 grams! Also, there are no trees in the mustard family (Brassicaceae), mustard seeds do not grow into "the greatest of all trees." This plant is an annual or perennial herb.

Luke 1:44
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

A fetus cannot understand speech.

Matthew. 24:29
"The moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven."
Mark 13:24-25
"In those days ... the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall."

Apparently, the writers of the Gospels believed that the moon produces its own light, and that the stars are lights held in place by a firmament only a few miles above our heads. Of course this is gibberish. Trillions of stars will never fall to Earth and the moon does not produce its own light.

I Corinthians 15:36
Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Paul (and God) shows their lack of knowledge of botany by saying that only dead seeds will germinate. Actually, a seed must be alive to germinate. Dead seeds will remain “dead”.

Hebrews 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

God set the earth on a foundation; therefore, it must not move. (See: The Geocentric Solar System )

Revelation of John 6:13
"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...."

To John, the stars are just little lights a few miles away that can easily fall to the earth.
So how far and big are the stars? Unlike what the prophets, the Apostles and the Messiah believed, stars just doesn’t hang around inside Earth’s “firmament” like dainty little Christmas lights. The nearest star, our Sun (yep! In case you still doesn’t know, our Sun is a star) is already 150,000,000 km away. The nearest star system, Alpha Centauri and Proxima Centauri are 15 light years away. Beta Adromedae is about seventy-five light years away and the nearest galaxy in the Milky Way (our home galaxy), M31 is 2 million light years away. Oh and before I forget, a light year is equal to 9.46 x 10 to the 12th power kilometers. Very far huh?

Unlike what the Bible seems to imply, stars are massive. Our Sun, a medium size star can fit a thousand Earth in its interior. There are stars that are 10 times more massive that our Sun.

Revelation of John 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

It seems the New Testament has a different shape of the world. The Old Testament has a circular world …something lake a plate. Well, I guess that settles it: the earth is flat and at least quadrilateral in shape. (See: The Flat Earth)

Revelation of John 8:10
"And there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters."

In the bible, stars are just little lights that can fall to the ground from the sky. (See: Revelation of John 6:13)

This is really not a very complete lists and maybe, just maybe this list is enough to support my point that the Bible is not a scientific book. So kids…if you use the Bible as a reference to your science test, chances are you’ll going to get a grade of “F”.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

Jesus and the Fig Tree.

2008-06-01T15:49:00.002+08:00

You know what I really hate, a fig tree killer!

When I question the story about Jesus killing the fig tree in the Book of Mark (11:12-13, 20-21) and the Book of Matthew (21:18-21), I always get different responses. Here is an example from a Christian named Claro.

John the Atheist: Do you have to kill an innocent life form just to prove your point?

Claro: If the value of the “point” you are trying to prove is more valuable than the “innocent life”, why not. The Fig Tree represent he Jews.

Gosh! Kill an innocent life to prove a point! That is awful! I think it is the same excuse Hitler would utter to justify his “final solution”. No wonder Hitler was a Christian.

So what is more valuable to an innocent life? Maybe a Christian like Claro and an environmentalist atheist like me will always have trouble reconciling the term “valuable life”.

OK, let say, a scientist will have to demonstrate the dangerous effect of smoking and he will use a little bunny rabbit to demonstrate it. Fine, a lot of laboratory around the world are doing that and many animal-rights activists are fighting for the stop of such practice. Can we compare this on what Jesus did in the Book of Mark and Matthew?

Let see...

According to the narrative, Jesus and his apostles are walking when Jesus felt hungry. he saw a fig tree and when he approached this it has no fruits. Therefore, this appalling hoodwink cursed the fig tree and the poor defenseless fig tree died. .

Mark 11: 12-14, 20-21 12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14And Jesus answered and said unto it, "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." And his disciples heard it.

20And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. 21And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.

Matthew 21:18-21
18Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, "Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever." And presently the fig tree withered away. 20And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

That is not a parable. If you will read it, it is a complete account. There is nothing in the whole story that makes it look like a parable. Jesus is hungry, he saw a fig tree that does not have a fruit and he cursed it. PERIOD. That is why when a Christian insists that this is a parable; I always call such tactic the “parable excuse”.

A parable is a short moral story that often uses animal characters. Well unless you say that Jesus was the animal in the account, the story is not a parable. It does not give any moral lesson. It is a complete narration. The fig tree is not a symbol, a metaphor or any excuse you can think of. The fig tree in the story does not represent the Jews or anything. The fig tree in the story is...well a fig tree!

How will you connect this fig tree and the Jews? Let us see what kind of an example this tree fiend told his apostles.

21Jesus answered and said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. " 22"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. – Matthew 21:21-22

They are not talking about the Jews. They are talking about faith. So will you kill an innocent life to talk about faith? What was Jesus’ important point in this verse? Can faith move mountains? I do not think so. (Oh yes, faith can move mountains – in your dreams!)

Now is Claro saying that the event in Matthew 21:12-17 are also parables? When Jesus upturns the tables in the Temple, is that mere story telling? If Claro will only read the whole chapter and verse, he will see that the event from the fig tree to the upturning on the moneychanger’s tables were not parables.

Now Matthew 21:28 is a parable. It started as “certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.” Here we see Jesus telling a story. Matthew 21:33 is also a parable. However, that does not mean that starting to Matthew 21:1 up to the last of the chapters are all parables (Non-Sequitur)!

Is Luke 13: 6-9 connected with the event in Matthew 21: 18-21 or Mark 11:12-14, 20-21? No, it is not. Let see...

" 6He spake also this parable; "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. " 7"Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? " 8"And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: " 9"And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. " 10And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.

Here we are talking about a parable about a fig tree that does not have a fruit for 3 years...3 years! Jesus just saw the fig tree in Matthew and Mark that day; we are not talking about 3 years.

The fig tree in the parable is a symbol to Israel and the fruits of righteousness. Remember that Luke 13:6-9 is a parable, the author said it himself (He spake also this parable), while the fig tree in Matthew and Mark does not symbolized anything.

Beside, you will not find the story of the fig tree murder in the Book of Luke.

Therefore, as a show of distraction Claro came with this excuse:
Peter called what Jesus said regarding the fig tree "cursedst", that's Peter's word, not Jesus'.

Really? @ Claro

Well according to Webster, a curse is something causes misery or death. Maybe Peter just knows his dictionary more than you and Jesus do @ Claro.

Killing innocent life is not a virtue. There is no excuse. In addition, you cannot make me worship a beast who brutalized trees because it does not have any fruit.

Until next time,
Please love your fig trees...

Simple Counter-Evangelism 101

2008-01-14T10:58:00.001+08:00

Advance in what?

2008-01-05T09:02:00.000+08:00

Maybe it’s just human nature for believers to claim that their so-called holy books are advance. That’s natural and I can live with that. I really don’t care if you are just defending your religious belief; well it’s just belief anyway. The problem is when they claim that certain facts prove that...Hmmmmm, I think you get the picture.

Here’s an example. Eliseo (you know him?) wrote this article to prove that the Bible is an advance book. According to him, “The Bible is the one and only book on earth that carries with it an authority and authentication not coming from any human person, but from somebody whose knowledge is above nature and humans. This person is God. I will ask you some questions and try to answer them carefully and honestly.”

And so he answered it...but I doubt if it’s carefully and honestly.

Claim No.1 Advance in astronomy and earth science.

This belief that the earth is flat was shared even by powerful people up to the middle ages. It was only very recently that we have had physical evidences showing the picture of the earth caught from outer space by the cameras of the series of Apollo spaceships that were sent to the moon that proves that the earth is round and spherical in shape. This truth is already revealed in the Bible, less than 3000 years before it was seen by man. In the book of Isaiah 40:22 it says…

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in…”

And again…

(Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.” (NASB)

These informations are present in the Bible long before man has seen physical evidences with his eyes that the earth is round. This truth can not come from any human source, but from Somebody dictating to prophet Isaiah what to write. Just like the prophet Daniel, Isaiah may not know or have any idea of the physical reality of the truth he is writing, but it was written for us to realize that wisdom in the Bible came from a Supernatural Being.

This belief that the earth is flat was shared even by powerful people up to the middle ages. It was only very recently that we have had physical evidences showing the picture of the earth caught from outer space by the cameras of the series of Apollo spaceships that were sent to the moon that proves that the earth is round and spherical in shape. This truth is already revealed in the Bible, less than 3000 years before it was seen by man.

The problem of this claim: In discussing the spherical era of Earth's history, the Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 6, 1978, pp. 1-3) explains that ancient astronomers determined that the earth was round by observing its circular shadow move across the moon during lunar eclipses. The Egyptians and Greeks as far back as 2550 BCE (more than a thousand years before Moses) knew not only the earth's spherical shape but also its approximate size. The Grecian philosopher Pythagoras, who was born in 532 BCE, defended the spherical theory on the basis of observations he had made of the shape of the sun and moon. If this information was generally known by educated Greeks and Egyptians before and during biblical times, how can anyone say with certitude that the writers of the Book of Isaiah couldn't have known about it?

So Eliseo’s claim is imaginary. Humans already know that before the Bible mentioned it on its pages.

Also, let’s take a good look at Isaiah 40:22. According to Eliseo, the word “the circle of the earth” confirms the scientific foreknowledge of the Bible and...What? Wait a minute...I thought he’ll answer this carefully and honestly?

Let’s look at Isaiah 40:22
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Have you noticed that this verse compared “the circle of the earth” to a tent and not a ball? Maybe you’re familiar with a tent. Isn't it nice to know that the heavens are spread out like a tent? All the tents I have seen were domed over a flat surface. In Hebrew, the word used for “circle” is “khug”, and just think for once, a plate is also a circle, a coin is also a circle, yet they are not spheres.

I would like to thank Eliseo’s own article from providing us more information. This piece of article can be found on his own post...and according to him, it came from Reader’s Digest Library of Modern Knowledge book 1 p.14 which says, “The Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people of the first millennium B.C. pictured the Earth as a flat slab of land, which was rectangular or circular in shape and rimmed by sea, and which at some point met the sky. What happened on this horizon no one knew; the fear of reaching the edge of the world discouraged mariners from sailing far from coasts they knew.”

The article speaks about the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people of the first millennium B.C. That includes the ancient Hebrews. According to Isaiah 40:22 the Earth is like a dome where God sit upon it. The Hebrews copied this “cosmology” from more ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilization like Sumeria.

When the authors of Isaiah attempted to talk about Earth Science, their only source of knowledge was a chain of written history dating back to the Sumerian Civilization. The Sumerians were the first to invent writing—cuneiform—approximately 4000 BC or shortly thereafter.

The verse from Amos validated my claim.

(Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.”

Notice the word “vaulted dome”?

Claim No. 2 That the Bible has already prophesized that human knowledge will increase.

(Daniel 12:8-10, 4) “And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand…

“…But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”

The prophet Daniel wrote these passages, but do not have the slightest idea of what a cell phone, a television, or a computer would look like when the fulfillment of the words “Many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be increased…” come into reality. This further proves that there was Someone who has the capacity to see what will happen in the future, dictated Daniel what to write in his book of the Bible. There is no possibility whatsoever that these advance information, which the Bible calls ‘prophecies’, can come from human mind, but from Someone far more superior in humans in understanding and wisdom.

The Bible is the only book on earth that tells us things that will happen before they happen, many centuries ahead.

The problem of this claim: I really don’t get this one. It seems that Eliseo is implying that in the time of the ancients, there were no increased of knowledge, that the world was filled with primitives, heathens, savages, dummies. Their intelligence matched their simple technologies; their languages were simple, their cultures were primitive, they were brutes. So do other ancient culture’s heads empty? It looks as if the idea that someday knowledge will increase were not dreamed by other culture.

To say that only the Bible has prophesied the increased of knowledge in the future is badly flawed. More ancient religions and sacred writing have already done that even before the Hebrews walk out of Egypt. Whether it is bad or good other ancient cultures have predicted the boosted of knowledge. Here are some examples:

The Hindu epic poem, Mahabharata, written between 300 BCE and 300 CE described what appears to be nuclear and also describe the effects of radioactive poisoning.
It states: "… a single projectile charged with all the power of the universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns, rose in all its splendor. It was the unknown weapon, the iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes the entire race of Vrishnis and Andhakas.
The corpses were so burnt they were no longer recognizable. Hair and nails fell out. Pottery broke without cause... Foodstuffs were poisoned. To escape, the warriors threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment.
The poem goes on to describe the devastation of this weapon which is similar to the destruction of the A-bomb. "A substance like fire has sprung into existence…blistering hills. Rivers, and trees. All… are being reduced to ashes."

Not only the Hindus but also the American Indian Hopi tribe has foreseen that men will invent a thermonuclear device. "The white brother will bring the symbol of the sun which makes a great explosion shaking the earth…

One of the most astounding prophecies of the American Indians, especially by the Hopi and the Aztec, was the coming of the white man, called Pahána, to the New World.
The Hopi said the white men would return with the sign of the cross and bring a holocaust upon the land through his inventions and lack of spirituality. Remember, the American Indians had no knowledge of Christianity.

As the American Indians prophesied, the new inhabitants of the land were great inventors. Ironically, many people from all different cultures prophesied of these new inventions before their times. This is in light of the fact that most people only knew of transportation by horses, asses, and boats.

Oh and one more thing, the ancients are really not that naive as Eliseo think they are. Have you ever read the works Zechariah Sitchin’s The 12th Planet and Erich von Däniken’s Chariot of the Gods? You will notice that these books promote the advancements of science and technology from ancient culture such as Sumeria, Egypt, Babylonia and Mayan.

In 3100 BCE Menes, the founder of the 1st Dynasty writes The Secret Book of the Heart, describing 3 kinds of healers, the physician, the priest and the sorcerer. He already knew the role of the physician in healing ailments.

The Sumerians have invented the cylinder seal, the forerunner of the modern rotary press, the ziggurat, the kilt among others, all in the time of 3500 BCE.

In the Papyrus Ebers, the Ancient Egyptians were discovering things about how the human body worked and they knew that the heart, pulse rates, blood and air were important to the workings of the human body, "46 vessels go from the heart to every limb, if a doctor places his hand or fingers on the back of the head, hands, stomach, arms or feet then he hears the heart. The heart speaks out of every limb."

The papyrus continues:
"There are 4 vessels to his nostrils, 2 give mucus and 2 give blood; there are 4 vessels in his forehead; there are 6 vessels that lead to the arms; there are 6 vessels that lead to the feet; there are 2 vessels to his testicles (and) it is they which give semen; there are 2 vessels to the buttocks."

The document actually gives names to organs such as the spleen, the heart, the anus, the lungs etc so they must have known that these exist. One papyrus, the Edwin Smith Papyrus, has a detailed description of the brain in it so this organ was also well researched by the standards of the time. It is probable that this knowledge came as a result of the practice the Ancient Egyptians had of embalming dead bodies.

Claim No. 3 That only the Bible told us that it is good to cry and laughter is the best medicine.

Not only science, but also medical knowledge that man have learned very lately, and history, can attest to the authenticity of this one and only book.

The Bible tells us that it is good to cry.

(Ecclesiastes 7:2) “It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.”

(James 4:9) “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.”

Medical findings have proven that what the Bible says is true.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article24374 69.ece

Equally true is: We must not indulge in too much weariness and crying.

(1 Corinthians 7: 29-30) “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not…”

This will mean that we have to laugh also and be merry.

(Proverbs 17:22) “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.”

There is no contradiction in the preceding verses that I have cited. We have to laugh. We have to cry. It depends upon the situation. It is natural. It is healthy. So, the Bible speaks the truth! Why the Bible? Think it over and over again.

The problem of this claim: Throughout history, spiritual traditions in China, Japan and India have revered the sacred strength of laughter. Lao-Tzu is always pictured smiling. Samurai are always laughing. “Laughter Yoga” was a practice of the ancient rishis of India over 5,000 years ago.

Hypocrites, in his medical treatise, stressed the importance of “a gay and cheerful mood on the part of the physician and patient fighting disease”.

In the Native American culture for example, “Nanabush” the trickster, a central figure in Chippewa (Ojibwa) storytelling, challenges the gods and cheats death by playing a trick on them: “During the year of the sickness, when I was the last one left, I saved myself by starting a story. Death could not get a word in edgewise, grew discouraged, and traveled on”. Nanapush demonstrates the power of Native American humor against sickness and death.

The ancient Hawaiians assert there are two chemical reactions within the human body that can accomplish Reconnection with Source Oneness. The first is the "sacred tear” beneath our sadness and hopelessness. Beneath that tear lies the second chemical reaction, said to be more powerful than all the healing agents known to humankind. It comes "out of the blue" with the power of a jackhammer, shattering the seriousness of the entire human estate. A power instantly freeing and balancing to all the body's chemistry. This is the power of laughter. When it comes in this manner, it comes through the "na'au" (gut level) and will pierce the hopelessness of any situation or attitude. It is not a power to be taken lightly, for the ancient Hawaiians say it holds the chemistry of immortality and will instantly heal any terminal disease. It’s said to be the "laughter of God" which shatters the ridiculousness of hopelessness.

Claim No. 4 Historical claims

History and archeology also proves the authenticity of the Bible. Findings in archeology have proven so many times that what is recorded in the Bible are actual facts and truth. Roman coins found in Samaria authenticates the records in Matthew 22:17-21.

“And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

The discovery of the tunnel built by King Hezekiah authenticates the passages written in the book of Kings.

(2 Kings 20:20) “And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

The discovery of a limestone with the inscription that bares the name of Pontius Pilate is another proof of the Bible’s authenticity.

(John 19:6) “When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.”?

The problem of this claim: The claim is really non-sequitur. Eliseo is making a conclusion that since these structures and personality exists, that means the Bible history is authentic. Have you heard of a historical fiction? While there are some historical facts in the Bible, it represents a gross misrepresentation of the current state of archaeology to say that it has “never” contradicted the Bible. For example, archaeological research has demonstrated that the city of Ai, reported in Josh. 8 to have been conquered by Joshua, was a heap of ruins centuries before Joshua's time as discovered by Kathleen Kenyon.

Bear in mind that the Bible, as we know it today, is the end product of a long process of writing, editing and selecting of literature primarily concerned with the saga explaining how the nation Israel came to be, the development of the Jewish religious concepts, and its long literary history. It cannot be assumed that a group of men composed writings echoing what they thought God was dictating. The Bible reflects historical situations, human events, men's reactions to these happenings, and the belief that God was also involved in events.

The problem here is how you can distinguish history from legend. Sure England exists, but can you prove that King Arthur also exists. Montalban, Rizal and Mount Makiling are real places, but are Bernardo Carpio and Mariang Makiling also real people?

The story of Jose Rizal is a good example. If you’re familiar with your Rizaliana, you may find the story of Rizal throwing his slippers in Pasig, River as a legend, yet the whole Rizal story is factual and supported by documents. How about the story that George Washington chopped a cherry tree? Do you think historians already know that George Washington will become the first president of the United State of America and were already ready to record his biography when he was still a toddler?

One characteristic that helps to distinguish legend from history is the tendency of those who record legend to use terms to indicate the great age of the account without being specific as to when, precisely, the event occurred just like the samples above.

Another distinguishing feature lies in the tendency of historical writings to deal with matters of public importance, events that affect the political and public welfare of the group. In legend, the account centers on a person who may embody or dramatize the spirit of the group for whom the tale is recounted.

Example, although much of I and II Kings are historical, The dates of composition of these books are unknown, but although there are variants as to the actual number of editions the books went through, the consensus is that the language and outlook seems to point to a post exilic period (after 586 BCE) of composition. Saying that these books may contain some historical facts should in no way be confused with the claim that these books are accurate, or true, in all aspects. The same explanation can also be used in Matthew 22:17-21. If Pontius Pilate is an existing “Perfect of Judea" (not a “procurator” as Eliseo and Tacitus believed) in the suppose time of Jesus, the events narrated in Matthew 27:51-53 is too far-fetched to be considered as a historical event.

Remember, archaeological contributions provide no definite clues for determining whether or not the Bible is completely authentic and accurate in all its claims.

Claim No. 5 Tacitus
The same account was mentioned in the history of the Roman Empire (Annals 15:44)

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote concerning the Great Fire of Rome, in book 15, chapter 44 of his Annals (c. 116): Auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat…

Translated in English as:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius:

The problem with this claim:
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, occasionally reported stories which were false historically but were true in a literary sense or a moral sense. (E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993) (Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome (Penguin Books, 1973)

Also bear in mind that the historian Tacitus did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after Jesus alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his immediate followers, they would be hand-me-down stories.

Even in the book of Jewish antiquities, we can find this account:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 written by Flavius Josephus

The problem of this claim:

1. It is unlikely that Josephus, a Jew, would have called Jesus the Messiah.

2. The passage is never quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen, despite its enormous apologetic value.

3. From the fact that Josephus needed to distinguish this Jesus from other people in his book named Jesus, it does not follow that the phrase "called the Christ" was the most likely way Josephus could have identified Jesus. Josephus could have also said, "the one who was crucified by Pilate," since Josephus' earlier reference to Jesus did mention that point.

4. It is unlikely that Josephus would have written the other italicized phrases; Most scholars suspect there has been at least some tampering with the text on the basis of some or all of the italicized sections. Thus scholarly opinion can be divided into three camps: those who accept the entire passage as authentic; those who reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation into the text (perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius); and those who believe that the original text contained an authentic reference to Jesus but was later embellished by Christian copyists.

That’s the problem with claims. Most people seem to shy off from other explanations just to defend their contentions. If you would like to respond questions, - questions like why we should believe in the BIBLE, - well carefully and honestly is not enough. You should answer it free from biases and historically accurate as possible.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

Jesus Jokes

2007-12-02T09:36:00.000+08:00

The Bible is scientific...Tell that to the Marines!

2007-11-29T09:34:00.000+08:00

I really don’t know about these Bible idolaters. They disrepute science yet they are always trying hard to make the Bible look scientific. Take this case of this Christian cult leader who has this reputation of cussing people who seems to disagree to his outrageous claims.

Yep I’m talking about Eliseo Soriano, leader of this tele-Christian variety show, “Ang Dating Daan”. He’s not even through on lambasting other Christian sects and now he’s aiming his sight against a reputable person named Mr. Marshall Brain. Boy! Talk about being “asar-talo”.

According to this self-conceited jester...Mr. Brain’s allegation that the Bible is full of anti-scientific nonsense is completely baseless and stupid.

Well what is the difference between Mr. Brain and Eliseo anyway? Mr. Brain has a website. Yep a website that teaches science. It’s called How Stuffs Works. It’s a good site that teaches science and technology, especially to curious kids and unlike Eliseo Soriano who keeps on praying to God just to appear to the Oprah Winfrey Show, Mr. Brain already appeared on that show on Jan 19, 2006.

Mr. Brain is also an author and had written more than a dozen books. His notable achievement is being selected for the New York Public Library's prestigious Books for the Teen Age list. He’s also known as a member of the Academy of Outstanding Teachers at North Carolina State University, where he taught in the computer science department for 6 years. He also appeared in some shows in CNN, National Geographics and Fox Network.

On the other hand, Eliseo Soriano boasts that he has the most visited internet site (in the Philippines?) (Well...I know that Google is the most visited site in the Internet. According to comScore, the number one most visited site is Yahoo.), that he has the a fast growing church in the Philippines and that he knows the Bible compare to all other Christians in the face of this planet...He once had a TV show titled “Ang Dating Daan” (The Old Path). Thanks to the INC (Iglesia Ni Christo), the show was cut-off the air and was transferred to a new channel (Unfortunately this UHF channel is too remote and ridden with static.) I also heard that Eliseo is famous for insulting the Muslims.

Eliseo Soriano is best known for criticizing various denominations through his program "Ang Dating Daan" for their doctrines, practices and what he says are false teachings including the Catholic Church, Pentecostal Demoninations, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Iglesia ni Cristo, another Philippine-based religion which he calls Iglesia ni Manalo (Church of Manalo). He also claims that he had this God-given knowledge to interpret the Bible. Hmmmm...Maybe that’s why he got pissed off when he read Mr. Brain’s comment on his beloved Bible. Naturally, the Bible is Eliseo’s tool of the trade.

So let see...Is Mr. Brain’s comment correct?

According to Eliseo because no human intelligence can fathom the deep things of God, there are those like Marshall Brain that pervert or wrestle the word of God. He also said even the knowledge and understanding of the mysteries in the Bible is not attainable by
human efforts but, is given by God.

Really Eliseo?

Gas-gas nay-an Eliseo!

How inspired is this so-called holy book? Is inspiration included when your god orders his favorite pets to kill innocent women and babies? Do you need a “heavenly understanding” to comprehend a god who allows his puppets to rape and plunder?

Boy! If that is what you think of Godly inspirations, then its better not to be inspired by such hideous monster! Now look at Siddhartha. He is not divinely inspired by Eliseo’s Bible, but clearly he promotes the use of common-sense.

Ok I cannot fathom God...When Jesus was hungry, instead of promoting the propagation of figs even when it’s not fig season, he curses the poor tree to die. Sounds nauseating! I think Bathalla, Punhuldayan, Kabunyan and Mele can do a better job.

There is nothing to fathom here Eliseo. Clearly the book was written by primitive culture that hasn’t had any slight idea on the technology of proper irrigation and farming!

Oh and there are also stories of how Jesus cure lepers huh? Very touching...Yet did he ever accomplished of polishing off that damn disease out of this planet? We have to wait for his second coming for that? Then what the hell did he do in his first coming?

Mr. Brain doesn’t need to pervert the Bible. It’s already perverted.

If the Bible was not divinely inspired, how can primitive people write scientific facts long before they were understood by modern science?

Scientific Facts or “scientific farts”?

(Psalms 102:25-26) “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and
the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure:
yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change
them, and they shall be changed…”

According to Eliseo, this verse is talking about how the stars dying out. He even says that black holes are proof of this. But the verse is not about the death of stars.

Eliseo concluded that the presence of black holes in the vast space of the universe which, according to science, are remains of a star that collapsed, proves the scientific precision of what was written by David about 3,000 years ago. Yet the verse said heavens...not stars. If we look at the verse, heaven here speak of all celestial bodies...including black holes. (Strange that heaven here is in plural form – Does that include all of the 7 heavens?) So will the whole universe perish, as David and Eliseo think? If the heavens are made up of “matter and energy” and matter and energy is not created nor can be destroyed, then I think Eliseo and David must again brush up with their Physics 101. Clearly Eliseo is just twisting the scriptures to serve his own ends. Oh and before I forget, the heaven is really one very big...Black Hole and Bible twisting experts are really...ass holes.

(Job 26:7) “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the
earth upon nothing.”

In this verse, Eliseo justify that the scientific fact that the earth is hanging on an empty space in the universe is divine information and a scientific truth that was written by a ‘primitive’ man many thousands of years ago.

Really?

So may I ask, where is “north” in empty space? There is no "empty place" in our northern space. Everywhere astronomers look; they find space filled with galaxies and stars. That includes our northern space too. Another scientific boo-boo eh Eliseo?

(Genesis 2:16) “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat…”

Eliseo thinks that this verse talks about man being a frugivore, which proves another scientific fact. (Eliseo: The recent findings of modern scientists, that human beings are not to be considered herbivore or omnivore, but frugivore, proves another scientific fact written by Moses in the book of Genesis many millennia ago. )

Maybe he never truly understood archaic English...Let’s see what this verse says in modern English.

16 And the Lord God gave the man orders, saying, You may freely take of the
fruit of every tree of the garden:

So that’s clear enough for you? God says that man can take any (remember! “any”) fruit in every tree in the garden. It was specified that we are talking about fruits and trees inside the Garden of Eden. We are not talking about man being carnivore, omnivore or what ever “vore” Eliseo would like to imply. Oh and by the way @ Eliseo, apes also eat fruits , so does fruit bats. The Chimpanzee’s teeth for example is build the same as humans to munch fruits. If you believe that only humans are capable of eating fruits, you’re a fruit cake! A frugivore is an animal, such as a chimpanzee or fruit bat, that feeds primarily on fruit, that includes humans as well. So maybe Cain is right when he offered vegetable matters to God...but if the Bible is right, why did Jacob asked for a venison if God knows man should not eat meat?

If we will take Eliseo’s word that the verse is talking about how human eat plants, well that makes us capable of eating “any” plant materials in planet Earth! Well...maybe Eliseo can demonstrate that by eating a good handful of “Tuba-Tuba”.

1 Corinthians 15:39. - “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind
of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of
birds.”

According to Eliseo, “The apostle Paul has no knowledge at all of the DNA or the genes in any living flesh. When he wrote that human flesh is different from animal flesh, he is writing scientific information that will only be understood by humanity through the science of genealogy.

Genealogy is a new branch of science that studies the genes and the DNA of living organisms. It is wonderful to know that although, physically, there seems to be no difference at all between a human and an animal flesh, but by the study of the DNA in humans and that of animals, science was able to determine the exact difference of the two — proving that the Bible is a no-nonsense and is not an anti-scientific book.”

Hold your horses there Eliseo! First genealogy is not a new branch of science that studies the gene and the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) of living organism. My papaya naman! If Eliseo can’t even give a correct meaning of the word “genealogy”, how on Earth can I consider his so-called “scientific proof of the Bible” as accurate? According to Mr. Webster genealogy is:

1. A record or table of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree.
2. Direct descent from an ancestor; lineage or pedigree.
3. The study or investigation of ancestry and family histories.

Genetics is the branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms. If we’re going to talk about DNA, I think it will fall more into genetics than genealogy.
DNA is also not about animal flesh. Even your bones have DNA. If you are made up of cells, you got DNA moron!

Eliseo also said: The recent study of human DNA can trace where on earth civilization has started. The fact discovered by DNA scientists has established the trail from where global population originated: and it points to where, according to the Bible, Adam and Eve first lived.

Sorry to burst Eliseo’s ridiculous blabber.

The discovery of the “genetic Eve” base on the female mitochondrial DNA has established the link to Africa. Not in the Middle East. Remember that the Biblical definition of Eden place the site near the land between the Tigris and Euphrates part of what is now known as Iraq.

1 Corinthians 15:39 is used by Creationists to argue against both evolution and any attempt to create "human-animal hybrids" or "chimeras." So that means Bible believers think that this verse justify the “uniqueness” of humans to other animals. It’s not about DNA because every living organism in this planet has a DNA. Also, the verse on its continuity talks about the ability of humans to resurrect from the dead. Paul is not talking about DNA, he’s talking about resurrection of the dead, which is quite unscientific.

38 But God gives it a body, as it is pleasing to him, and to every seed its
special body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men,
another of beasts, another of birds, and another of fishes. 40 And there are
bodies of heaven and bodies of earth, but the glory of the one is different from
that of the other. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the
moon, and another glory of the stars; for the glory of one star is different
from that of another. 42 So is it with the coming back from the dead. It is
planted in death; it comes again in life: 43 It is planted in shame; it comes
again in glory: feeble when it is planted, it comes again in power: 44 It is
planted a natural body; it comes again as a body of the spirit. If there is a
natural body, there is equally a body of the spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:
39-44)

Paul is not writing something scientific, he’s writing gibberish esoteric non-sense! Stupid!

So when you are trying to interpret the Bible, please interpret it on how the author wrote it not on how you will like it to become.

Eliseo’s jabbers are clear paradigms of how any dishonest Christian apologetic, sweet-talkers can twist biblical interpretations or hermeneutics to suit his own understanding of science. Unfortunately, there are many gullible people out there who easily fall to this kind of deception. But luckily, there are still people with “brains” who can distinguish real science from biblical illusions and false data, just like Mr. Marshall Brain.

When you try to twist the Bible base on your own schema, it clearly shows that the Bible is really not a scientific book and it also shows that these Bible idolaters are not even sure of what they put their faith on. This is a strong evidence of intellectual dishonesty. Trying to justify the Bible with science clearly show that Eliseo doesn’t trust his own faith...his own God.

So if Eliseo Soriano himself can’t trust the Bible, then why should I trust this stupid book? Clearly the Bible was really written by primitive, superstitious minds.

Until next...same Bat time...Same Bat channel!

John the Atheist.

Putting it in its proper place

2007-11-22T08:53:00.000+08:00

Infallible?

2007-11-15T08:28:00.000+08:00

Every believer considers his holy books as infallible. Naturally, how can you believe it as god given if there are slip-ups written on its page?

Christians believe that the Bible is infallible. According to Norman Giesler, the Bible teaches truth both in spiritual and scientific/historical matters (see: When Skeptics Asked – pp.150-152 Giesler and Brooks). In the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, a statement of faith agreed to by many Evangelical Christian groups from over 150 nation said in Section 2 of “The Authority and Power Of the Bible” It state in part: “We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

Bible scholar Wayne Grudem defines biblical inerrancy in the following way: "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact." He also added that in all his years of studying the Bible, he does not know of any biblical problem passage for which there is not a satisfactory explanation.

Yet not all Christians agree with the unlimited inerrancy of the Bible. The Roman Catholic for instance believe in a limited inerrancy. According to the Second Vatican Council, DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM CHAPTER III SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION

11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind"

1. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap.
2 "On Revelation:" Denzinger 1787 (3006); Biblical Commission, Decree of June
18,1915: Denzinger 2180 (3629): EB 420; Holy Office, Epistle of Dec. 22, 1923:
EB 499.
2. cf. Pius XII, encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu," Sept. 30,
1943: A.A.S. 35 (1943) p. 314; Enchiridion Bible. (EB) 556.
3. "In" and
"for" man: cf. Heb. 1, and 4, 7; ("in"): 2 Sm. 23,2; Matt.1:22 and various
places; ("for"): First Vatican Council, Schema on Catholic Doctrine, note 9:
Coll. Lac. VII, 522.
4. Leo XIII, encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," Nov.
18, 1893: Denzinger 1952 (3293); EB 125.
5. cf. St. Augustine, "Gen. ad
Litt." 2, 9, 20:PL 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354.
St. Thomas, "On Truth," Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural
Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical "Providentissimus Deus:" EB
121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu:" EB 539.

Fr. R.E.Brown for example, wrote , “In this long journey of thought the concept of inerrancy was not rejected but was seriously modified to fit the evidence of biblical criticism which showed that the Bible was not inerrant in question of science, of history, and even of time-conditioned religious beliefs.” That means the Bible is an inerrant guide in matters of faith and practice. The purpose is to lead men to salvation and those any other subjects are of no importance. That means the authors of the Bible may be wrong in matter of geography, science, astronomy, biology and history.

Ok, ok…suppose we acknowledge this explanation. That connotes that Genesis is just a myth. That the Flood never really happened and that Jesus Christ doesn’t exist. All the stories in the Bible were just created to lead man to believe in a god and to accept the promise of salvation or to have a meaningful life. That those stories about Jesus’ return, hell and heaven, Armageddon and Satan were just created to scare the shit out of you! Maybe that’s why most Christians don’t agree with a limited inerrancy.

So we look at the issues of unlimited inerrancy.
According to Giesler, “if the Bible is the Word of God and God can only speak the truth, then there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the Bible contains no error. Inspiration guarantees inerrancy.” (When Skeptics Ask – p. 151)

So if we are going to use Geisler’s logic, if the Bible has errors then it’s not the word of God.

Let’s take a look on the following verses:
• (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
• (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
• (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
• (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
• (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
• (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
• (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
• (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
• (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
• (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
• (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
• (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
• (m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
• (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
• (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
• (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
• (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
• (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
• (s) According to Leviticus 14:49- 53 to cure leprosy one must kill a bird and do some incantations involving cedar woods, scarlet, and hyssop.
• Donkeys can talk (Numbers 22:21-30)
• Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun…(Isaiah 30:26). Modern astronomy dictates that the moon only reflects its light from the Sun.

Now how can we defend that these statements are scientifically accurate? Remember, Christian believers boast that the Bible is scientifically correct.

How about these mathematical problems?
• (a) "... and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, Jusha-bhesed, five." (1 Chron. 3:19-20). How can there be five sons of Zerubbabel when 7 males and one female are listed?
• (b) "And it had for its inheritance (1)Beer-sheba, (2)Sheba, (3)Moladah, (4)Hazar-shual, (5)Balah, (6)Ezem, (7)Eltolad, (8)Bethul, (9)Hormah, (10)Ziklag, (11)Beth-marcaboth, (12)Hazarsuah, (13)Beth-lebaoth, and (14)Sharuhen- thirteen cities with their villages" (Josh. 19:2-6 RSV). Fourteen cities are listed, not 13. If you say, one of those names is not a city, well…where’s your reference?
• (c) "The cities belonging to the tribe of the people of Judah in the extreme South, toward the boundary of Edom, were Kabzeel, Eder, Jagur, Kinah, Dimonah, Adadah, Kedesh, Hazor, Ithnan, Ziph, Telem, Bealoth, Hazor-hadattah, Kerioth-hezron (that is Hazor). Amam,Shema, Moladah, Hazar-gaddah, Heshmon, Bethpelet, Hazar-shual, Beer-sheba, Biziothiah, Baalah, Iim, Ezem, Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah, Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah, Lebaoth, Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon; in all twenty-nine(29) cities, with their villages" (Josh. 15:21-32 RSV). Thirty-six cities are listed, not 29.
• (d)"...and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal and Barial, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six" (1Chron. 3:22). Five names don't total six.
• (e) "...the sons od Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun,..." (1 Chron. 25:3). Again, five names do not total six.
• (f) "And in the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah, Zanoah, En-gannim, Tappuah, Enam, Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Sha-araim, Adithaim, Gederah, Gederothaim: fourteen cities with their villages" (Josh. 15:33-36 RSV). Fifteen cities are listed, not 14.
• (g) "The whole congregation together (those who returned from the Captivity.) was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore (42,360)" (Ezra 2:64). The number of people in each tribe that returned from the Captivity is listed from Ezra 2:3 to Ezra 2:60. One need only total the figures to see that 29,818 returned, not 42,360- an error of 12,542.
• (h) A similar problem is encountered in Neh. 7:66, which says, "the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and three-score (42,360)." One need only add the figures between Neh. 7:8 and Neh. 7:62 to see that the total for all the tribe should have been 31,089, not 42,360-- an error of 11,271. Besides adding inaccurately, Ezra and Nehemiah can't agree on what the total should be. The former supports 29,818 while the latter asserts 31,089.
• (i) "And this is the number of them: Thirty (30) charges of gold, a thousand (1,000) charges of silver, nine and twenty (29) knives, Thirty (30) basins of gold, silver basins of a second sort four hundred and ten (410), and vessels a thousand (1,000). All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred (5,400)" (Ezra 1:9-11). Even if all these items were composed of silver and gold, they would not total 5,400 (30+ 1,000+ 29 + 30 + 410 + 1,000=2,499 not 5,400).
• (j) "And these were the sons of Levi by their names; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari" (Num. 3:17) and "Those that were numbered of them (the Gershonites-Ed.)...were seven thousand and five hundred (7,500)" (Num. 3:22) and "...these are the families of the Kohathites...eight thousand and six hundred (8,600)" (Num. 3:27-28) and "...these are the families of the Merari. And those that were numbered of them,...were six thousand and two hundred (6,200)" (Num.3:33-34), versus "All that were numbered of the Levites,...were twenty and two thousand (22,000)" (Num. 3:39). The author of Numbers added inaccurately, since 7,500 + 8,600 + 6,200 equals 22,300, not 22,000.
Besides fallacious counting and adding, biblical authors had difficulty measuring and computing.
• (k) "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (1 Kings 7:23). How could a circle be 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference? Since pi is 3.14, the circumference must be 31.40 (3.14 x 10) cubits.
• (1) "Thirty and two years old (32) was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign, and he reighed in Jersalem eight (8) years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David,... And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king is his stead:... So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old (42) was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." (2 Chron. 21:20). If Jehoram began to reign at age 32 and ruled 8 years, he died at age 40. Yet his son took over immediately and was 42 years old. The son, Ahaziah, was two years older than his father, Jehoram.
• (m) Ezek. 40:27 is translated as followed in three different versions: "...and he measured from gate to gate the south an hundred (100) cubits" (KJV). "He measured from gate to gate one hundred and seventy-five (175) feet" (Modern Language). "And the distance between the passageway was 175 feet" (Living Bible). If 100 cubits equals 175 feet, then one cubit equals 1 3/4 feet. On the other hand, these versions translate Gen. 6:15 as follows: "...The length of the ark shall be three hundred (300) cubits, the breadth of it fifty (50) cubits, and the height of it thirty (30) cubits" (KJV). "...The length of the ark four hundred and fifty (450) feet; its width seventy-five (75) feet and its depth forty-five (45) feet" (Modern Language). "Make it 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high" (Living Bible). If 300 cubits equals 450 feet, then 1 cubit equals 1 1/2 feet. The authors of the various versions of the Bible can't agree on the length of a cubit. Is it 1 3/4 or 1 1/2 feet long?
(Source: Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKinsey)

We also have some problem regarding Biblical geography:
(1) "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east,...." (Matt. 2:1-2). Since the wise men were east of Jesus, how could an eastern star or a star east of them tell them anything?
(2) "Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey" (Acts 1:12). The inaccuracy of this comment lies in the fact that Olivet, the Mount of Olives was just outside the wall of Jerusalem near the Temple, hardly a day's journey.
(3) "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim,...." (John 3:23). Nearly all critics agree there is no such place near Salim.
(4) "Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis" (Mark 7:31 RSV). The geographical knowledge of Mark's author is questionable in that it's hard to imagine going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by passing through Sidon, much less the region of Decapolis. Sidon is to the north of Tyre and the Sea of Galilee while Decapolis is to the south of Tyre and the Sea of Galilee. This assertion was made by Mark when there were no coasts of Decapolis, nor was the name so much as known before the reign of the emperor Nero.
(5) "Again the devil taketh him up into an exceedingly high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world,...." (Matt. 4:8). How could anyone see the whole world from one spot, even the known world at that time?
(6) "For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt" (Josh. 2:10) and "By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians as saying to do were drowned" (Heb. 11:29) and "Pharoah's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains are also drowned in the Red Sea" (Ex. 15:4) and "But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of the Pharoah, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon" (Ex. 4:9) and (Ex. 14:22). The Bible repeatedly says the Israelites crossed the Red Sea when they fled Egypt. Yet, they crossed at Baal-sephon which is more than 100 miles north of the Red Sea.
(7) "And it came to pass that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan" (Matt. 19:1). The Jordan River being the eastern boundary of Judea, no "coasts of Judea" existed beyond it. The coast of Judea is the Jordan.
(8) "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;.... And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia and the name of the third river is Hiddehel; that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates" (Gen. 2:10-14). The geography of all this makes no sense. There is no Middle East river that divides and becomes the four rivers mentioned.
(a) Havilah is a desert area southwest of Saudi Arabia, residing next to the Red Sea. There is no river encompassing the region. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find any river.
(b) The Gihon river is apparently the Nile because it encompasses "the whole land of Ethiopia." Yet, the Nile is nowhere near the alleged location of the Garden of Eden.
(c) This geographical presentation makes the Nile and the Euphrates branch from the same river.
(d) It sounds as if Eden is the entire Middle East since Ethiopia and the Euphrates River are linked together.
(e) What river has ever left the Garden of Eden area and parted into four rivers?

(9) "And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes (or Gerasenes or Gergesenes)" (Mark 5:1). How could this occur? Gadara and Gerara are both miles from the sea. They do not border it.
(10) "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus" (John 12:21). Bethsaida is in Gaulonitis, not Galilee.
(11) "And leaving Nazareth (on the western side of the Jordan.), he came and dwelt in Capernaum (also on the western side of the Jordan), which is upon the sea coast in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan,...." (Matt. 4:13-15). Zebulon and Nephtali are not beyond the Jordan or across the Jordan. They are on the western side of the Jordan, not the eastern. Moreover, Capernaum is within the borders of Nephalim but not those of Zebulon.
(12) "These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing" (John 1:28). Contending that Bethabara is an interpolation, the scholar Geihie says, "The most ancient manuscripts read Bethany instead of Bethabara, but no site of that name is now known on the Jordan." The RSV says "Bethany" not "Bethabara." Bethany was a suburb of Jerusalem and was not beyond the Jordan.
(13) "Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum,...." (Matt. 4:12-13). If this says Jesus left Nazareth and entered the province of Galilee to arrive in Capernaum, then the geography is poor. Nazareth is as much in Galilee as is Capernaum. If he left Nazareth and went to Capernaum, then he remained in Galilee, since that's the province in which both reside.
(14) "And I answered, `Who art thou, Lord?' And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest" (Acts 22:8).
(a) "Why would he be called Jesus of Nazareth when he was born in Bethlehem, which is far from Nazareth?
(b) The Jews had every right to reject Jesus as the Messiah since he said he was from Nazareth which is in Galilee. As Scripture says, "Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David and out of the town of Bethlehem (which is far south of Galilee), where David was?"
(15) "Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, as I promised to Moses, From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates...shall be your territory" (Josh. 1:3-4 RSV). Israelite territory has never extended to the Euphrates River.
(Source: Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKinsey)

These are just few examples.

I think it was Thomas Paine who first gave us the first widely-published book about Bible errors in 1796. The book was called “Age of Reason”. In those times it is quite hard to look for books or even a small article regarding Bible errors. Well, the first to explore the issue of Bible errancy were the Roman Catholic. They investigate it for the reason of creating good apologies to defend the Bible. Unfortunately (or fortunately) their studies have broke away from the convents and were commence to theologians, philosophers and ordinary folks.

Today, thanks to the advancement of technology, information and communication, we now have the advantage to do our own examination regarding the Christians claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. It’s up to us to examine this using an open mind. If you like to know more Biblical errancy and contradictions, you can visit the following sites: The Skeptical Review, edited By Farrell Till and Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKinsey.

Oh and by the way, maybe you would like to see the following chapter and verses in the Bible:

1. Compare II Chron.36:23 to Ezra 1:2-3
2. In the KJV, compare 2 Kings 19:1-37 to Isaiah 37:1-38. Notice that it is the same word for word. Have they already invented the Xerox® machine in Biblical times?

Weird isn’t it?
John the Atheist

Gideon Bible inside hotel room might be a thing of the past.

2007-11-14T11:01:00.000+08:00

So Long, Gideons

By Roya Wolverson Newsweek Web Exclusive

The one thing travelers could reliably count on in their hotel rooms: a Bible in the bedside table. But like many traditions, this one may be dying.

In the rooms of Manhattan's trendy Soho Grand Hotel guests can enjoy an eclectic selection of underground music, iPod docking stations, flat-screen TVs and even the living company of a complimentary goldfish. But, alas, the word of God is nowhere to be found. Unlike traditional hotels, the 10-year-old boutique has never put Bibles in its guest rooms, because "society evolves," says hotel spokeswoman Lori DeBlois. Providing Bibles would mean the hotel "would have to take care of every guest's belief."

What might be surprising to many Americans is that the Bible-free room isn't a development just in hip New York City hotels. Across the country upscale accommodations are doing away with the Bible as a standard room amenity. And in its stead have arrived a slew of "lifestyle" products that cater to a younger, hipper (and presumably less religious) clientele. Since 2001 the number of luxury hotels with religious materials in the rooms has dropped by 18 percent, according to the American Hotel and Lodging Association. The Nashville-based Gideons International, which has distributed copies of the Christian scripture to hotels since 1908, declined to comment on this trend.

Edgier chains like the W provide "intimacy kits" with condoms in the minibar, while New York's Mercer Hotel supplies a free condom in each bathroom. Neither has Bibles. Since its recent renovation, the Sofitel L.A. offers a tantalizing lovers' dice game: roll one die for the action to be performed (for example, "kiss," "lick") and the other for the associated body part. The hotel's "mile high" kit, sold in the revamped gift shop, includes a condom, a mini vibrator, a feather tickler and lubricant. The new Indigo hotel in Scottsdale, Ariz., a "branded boutique" launched by InterContinental, also has no Bibles, but it does offer a "One Night Stand" package for guests seeking VIP treatment at local nightclubs and late checkout for the hazy morning after.

The reason for hotels' shift in focus? Leisure travel is up, business travel is down, and younger generations are entering the hotel market. Leisure now leads business by more than 10 percent in U.S. hotel stays, according to travel research firm D. K. Shifflet & Associates. With the lead in technology, design and nightlife, the boutique market is where Generations X, Y and young baby boomers want to be, says CEO Doug Shifflet. And with the boutique sector booming (boutique hotel rooms have grown by 23 percent since 2001, compared to only 7 percent for standard rooms), more traditional chains, which once catered to business clientele, are now desperate to emulate.

Sofitel's brand, for example, is taking "a new direction," says Daniel Entenberg, the "romance concierge" at the chain's flagship Los Angeles location. He was brought in two years ago in an effort to reposition the entire company's image. The chain once had Bibles in all guest rooms, but the corporate office in Dallas recently removed them due to guest inquiries about why other religious texts weren't available.

Even the staid Marriott chain, founded by a Mormon, is debating whether or not to include Bibles in its yet to be named boutique chain, which is set to launch in partnership with hipster hotelier Ian Schrager, who created the '70s disco Studio 54 and later New York City's Morgans, Royalton and Paramount hotels—which are largely credited with kicking off the boutique hotel craze. Schrager says he hasn't yet discussed the Bible amenity with Marriott, though he adds that his properties have never had in-room Bibles.

Marriott spokesman John Wolf says the Bible question is premature for the new venture, which he describes as "cutting-edge," "more urban" and "less values-oriented." Now, there's a marketing slogan no one's tried yet: "Sleep with us. Leave the values at home."

(from Newsweek)

101 Contradictions in the Bible

2007-11-11T10:27:00.001+08:00

Eat Your Heart Out, Atheists?

2007-11-10T10:09:00.001+08:00

Funny for Mr. Ely Soriano to place everyone on his garbage bin. I saw this article from Scribd.com called “Eat Your Heart Out, Atheists!”. It's about some atheist telling Christianity promotes cannibalism base on John 6:51-54 which says “51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

I think it dander the Sorianism pride (hehehe!)

Well according to Mr. Soriano, “Now we know by this question, that these imaginary people are living in their idiotic world understanding only their language of ignorance and impertinence. They speak of hypocrisy and lies like their adopted father.”

Ah Mr. Soriano, you really love to put a show, do you? Let’s talk about this verse Mr. Soriano is talking about.

That’s the problem with Bible hermeneutics, it’s everyone’s boat.

To Roman Catholic belief, Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. According to the Roman Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ. The empirical appearances are not changed, but the reality is.

The mysterious change of the reality of the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, a change to which patristic writers had given other equivalent names, began to be called "transubstantiation" in the Eleventh Century. It seems that the first text in which the term appears is of Gilbert of Savardin, Archbishop of Tours, in a sermon from 1079 (Patrologia Latina CLXXI 776). The term first appeared in a papal document in the letter Cum Marthae circa to a certain John, Archbishop of Lyon, 29 November 1202, then in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and afterward in the book "Iam dudum" sent to the Armenians in the year 1341. An explanation utilizing Aristotle's hylemorphic theory of reality did not appear until the thirteenth Century, with Alexander of Hales. Like Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholic Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East believe that Christ is really, fully, uniquely present in the Eucharistic elements, and that, in the Divine Liturgy, the one sacrifice of Christ is made present; and that the exact means by which the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit, is a mystery.

It is not also a form of idiomatic expression as what Mr. Soriano wants us to believe. For those who believe that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ, they explain, "Here we have Jesus' listeners convinced that he is inciting them to eat him. They get offended and leave. Jesus doesn't make any attempt to correct them. What does he do? He turns to the Apostles, and asks them if they want to leave."

Now a little bit of church history. In 110 AD (less than 90 years after the death and resurrection of Christ and about 20 years after the death of the Apostle John), Ignatius of Antioch wrote, "They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle of Ignatius to the Smytneans). Irenaeus (around the end of the second century) wrote, "The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies). The interesting thing about this is Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, the same Apostle who walked with Jesus and was present at the Last Supper! Roman Catholic believe that Polycarp learned first hand from John and passed on this teaching to Irenaeus which is unlikely that Irenaeus was taught an incorrect doctrine by someone who spent time with John the Apostle.

In 150 AD, Justin Martyr wrote, "For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food for which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the blood of that incarnate Jesus" (Justin Martyr, First Apology). These are just a few of the many examples of early Christian writers expressing their belief in the literal interpretation of the Eucharist. It is unreasonable to assume that these people were in error so soon after Christ’s death and resurrection. A brief study of Christian history will reveal that the early Christians believed in the Eucharist presence of Christ. Early Christians who were taught by apostles. Early Christians who were martyred for their faith during the persecutions of the first few centuries. Early Christians who authoritatively decided which books would make up the New Testament. All of these Christians believed in the Real Presence. (For more information on the Roman Catholic Eucharist, click here.)

Another reason why Jesus couldn't have been speaking figuratively is because the figurative phase "to eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" was a phrase commonly used by the Jews during that time to mean "to betray and persecute" (for example, see Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Rev 17:6,16). For the listeners to understand Christ figuratively, they would have understood him to say, "He who betrays and persecutes me has eternal life." This interpretation, of course, reduces John chapter 6 to complete nonsense.

Even Martin Luther taught that Christ was really, physically present within or under the bread and wine. Calvin taught that Christ is really present in a spiritual way (and eaten through union with Christ), but there is no physical change in the substance of the bread and wine.

Well those who will agree with Mr. Soriano’s biblical hermeneutics are the Born-Again Christians (who in fact changed the wine part of the Eucharist to grape juice.), and some Protestant denominations.

Now...cannibalism in religion is not really new.

Theophagy is always performed symbolically through the eating of a food or material symbolic of the god. This practice has origins in many ancient religions. In fertility rituals, the harvested grain may itself be the reborn god of vegetation. According to H. L. Mencken, in his "Treatise on the Gods, "African and Polynesian savages it constitutes the raison d'etre of sacrificial cannibalism, and among other primitive peoples it accounts for the ceremonial eating of totem animals." Eating the flesh of a sacred animal or of a god transfers the power of that animal or god to the eater.”

In Christianity this practice continues in the consumption of the Eucharist, in which the consecrated bread and wine, which Catholics believed is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, is consumed in the ritual of Holy Communion. Frederick the Great, Prussian king (1712-1786), in a letter to Voltaire said ". . . you will certainly grant me that neither antiquity nor whatever nation has devised a more repulsive and blasphemous absurdity than that of eating your God. This is the most disgusting dogma of Christian religion, the greatest insult to the Highest Being, the climax of madness and insanity."

According to Acharya S, cannibalism is a favored act of atonement can also be shown in the Old Testament at Deuteronomy 28:53-57, where "God" exacts "his" punishment against "his" stiff-necked "chosen people," who have made the fatal mistake of not serving "the Lord your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart" (Deut. 28:47). The "Lord" punishes the Hebrews by causing their enemies to besiege them in all their towns, leaving the Hebrews to eat their offspring. In this passage, "God" is so perturbed with his chosen ones that he forces them into starvation so that they have only their children to eat, which they apparently do. The evident motivation for "the Lord" to compel "his chosen" to do this bizarre and revolting act is so that they will "fear this glorious and awful name, the Lord your God" (Deut. 28:58). If the chosen do not obey the Lord, he will further cause them and their offspring "extraordinary afflictions, afflictions severe and lasting, and sickness grievous and lasting" (Deut. 28:59)

Well that's it for now ... oh and before I forget, it's really not hard to do some analysis of different belief system before you start yapping your mouth's content. You don't want to be called an empty drum, do you?

So who's the ignoramus @ Mr. Soriano? Hmmmm kaya ka pala dinededma ng mga obispo.

Ciao!

John the Atheist

Dinosaurs in the Bible? You've got to be kidding?

2007-11-08T08:31:00.001+08:00

“If you can’t beat them, join them”. I think that what on the mind of these Bible apologists when they say that you can find some references about dinosaurs in the pages of their “holy book”.

First when paleontologists discover the existence of dinosaur fossils, Christians retorted by saying that these bones were placed by Satan to deceive us to believe that dinosaur exist. Well so far so good. When people didn’t buy this cockeyed explanation, some Christian sect made stories that say God created the dinosaur together with human being, and what best reference they can show other than what was written in their “Holy Bible”.

Brachiosaurus

The Behemoth

According to Christians, the Book of Job is the evidence that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible…Hmmm let us see.

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him . Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. (Job 40:15-24 KJV)

Isn’t that great or what. Lo and behold, Job is talking about a sauropod, a Brachiosaurus. Yeah right…

Most Christians agree that the Behemoth in the Book of Job is a dinosaur. Many Young Earth Creationists propose that the Behemoth is a sauropod. But why are these guys’ compares the Behemoth to a dinosaur? It can mean anything? Well let us see.

According to these Christians, Job 40:15-24 is definitely talking about a dinosaur.
1. he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly – So the Behemoth eats grass! Yep and a dinosaur eats grass.

But so does a hippo and an elephant. Dinosaurs don’t eat grass like an ox. They were wholly incapable of chewing their food at all. Their jaws can only move up and down like the jaws of a crocodile, not in a circular pattern like the jaws of a cow. They ate vegetation by grasping the food with the teeth, and pulled away with the head, thereby "raking" the leaves into the mouth. In order to "chew" the food they swallowed, they had to swallow stones (called "gastroliths") that traveled through the necks and into the gizzard area. There, the stones help to grind their food by mashing plant matter into a digestible pulp with the help of special muscles found inside of the gizzards. Oh and did I forgot to tell you that sauropods were tree-browsers.

2. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Well…since a behemoth “has a tail that is exactly like a cedar tree” it must be a dinosaur. Good grief! Guys, can you read this verse again. It doesn’t say that a behemoth’s tail is like a cedar tree, it says that its tail move like a cedar. That means that it does not necessarily pointing towards the size of the tail, it only speaking about the motion pattern. It’s just saying that the behemoth’s tail moved like the branches of a cedar tree in the wind.

In the New International Version (NIV), the verses in question are translated as the following:
"What strength he has in his loins; what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar, the sinews of his thighs are close-knit..."

This version could indicate that the animal moved parts of the loin-region, such as the phallus, around aggressively, whether in heat or not. Following the symbolism of strong, well-functioning phalli being a metaphor for masculine courage, the verses continue to demonstrate the behavior and dependence on God of the creature, indicating the humility of a creature that would appear to have no need for humility.

3. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him .
That means anyone, approaching the creature, must arm himself with raw firepower; any weapon needed to kill this vicious monstrosity, including a sword. We are not talking about a creature dated back between 70 and 65 million years ago. We’re talking about some modern African animal, like a hippopotamus, a highly dangerous animal that has been said to kill humans more than any other dangerous animal in Africa.

4. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

The rest of the passage refers to Behemoth being a large amphibious mammal. Sauropods, on the other hand would not enjoy being stuck, bogged down, and up to their armpits in mud, mire, and water all the time and, in other cases, be drowned in their own tissue while standing in deep water.

The writer of Job is not talking about dinosaurs here. The New Living Translation says that it's a hippopotamus. In the original Hebrew, the word behemoth is of Egyptian origin. According to the Easton Bible Dictionary, "Some have supposed this to be an Egyptian word meaning a "water-ox." The Revised Version has here in the margin "hippopotamus," which is probably the correct rendering of the word. The hippopotamus is truly a wild animal that "eateth grass like an ox," can never be tamed, and makes his home in the swamps, lakes, and rivers of Africa. They were once common in the Middle East, especially in Egypt, but were not seen anymore in that area due to them being hunted down for their ivory teeth, meat, and hide by humans.

Parasaurolophus

Koronosaurus

Corythosaurus

The Leviathan

Another dinosaur “wannabee” in the Bible is the Leviathan.

The word "Leviathan" appears six times in the Bible:
1. Isaiah 27:1: "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."
2. Psalms 74:14: "Thou didst crush the heads of the Leviathan, thou didst give him for food to the creatures of the desert." NIV
3. Psalms 104:25,26: "O Lord, how manifold thy works, in wisdom you have created them all. So is this great and wide sea... there go the ships and the Leviathan which you have created to play therein" (AV);
4. Book of Job 3:8 "May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan "; (NIV )
5. Book of Job 40: 24-32, 41:1-24: "Can you draw out a Leviathan with a hook or press down its tongue with a cord? Canst thou put a hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a bridle ring? Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft words to thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? To take him for thy servant forever? Will thou play with him as with a bird? Or wilt thou bind him for thy girls? Will the tradesmen heap up payment for him?... Lay thy hand upon him, thou will no more think of fighting. Behold the hope of him is in vain, shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?...Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is near to the another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his [sneezing] a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth....His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone....He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble....He maketh the deep to boil like a pot....he is a king over all the children of pride."

According to Duane Gish, the Leviathan is a dinosaur, some dort of a Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus, or a plesiosaur such as Koronosaurus. Yet have he forgotten that the Leviathan appears also in Ugaritic texts, where it is described as a twisting serpent. In Canaanite mythology and literature, it is a monster called Lotan, 'the fleeing serpent, the coiling serpent with the seven heads'. It was eventually killed by Baal. The Leviathan is also the Ugaritic god of evil.

In Psalms 74:14 it also says that the Leviathan has many heads (14Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.)

Also, let us not forget the following descriptions:
A.) Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
B.) Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
C.) His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth

Gosh! These descriptions sounds like more of one of those monsters from a Japanese 1960’s monster show…like those Godzilla movies. Dinosaurs don’t have such abilities. The gentle Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus doesn’t shoot fire from their mouth. Also, there were no sailing ships on the time when sea reptiles known as pliosaurs ruled the seas.

Let me point out…the Bible is neither modern nor scientific. It was written in a poetical, ancient and mythological manner. So I hope Christian fundies should use their brain often and should try to distinguish facts from fables.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

The Christian Apologist's Flowchart

2007-07-11T09:39:00.000+08:00

There are no dumb questions, just dumb answers.

2007-06-21T18:54:00.000+08:00

A certain blue[]ce from PeX have these set of questions to Bible believers. I think his questions are interesting so I posted his questions here in my blog. Hope some Bible fanatic will answer these questions.

"Why did God not like Cain's vegetable sacrifice but loved Abel's cooked meat?"

"Who was Cain afraid would kill him when God put him out of the Garden for killing Abel?

"Why would God stop the whole earth for a day so Israelites could finish a genocide against the enemy?" I mean, I can see stopping it so there is more time to hug, or feed the hungry, or plant the crops, but more time to kill?

"How come the horses in the Exodus die twice in the Ten Plagues and still survive for Pharaoh to mount a final attack against the Israelites, and then die again."?

"Why does the Apostle Paul, who writes most of the New Testament, NEVER quote Jesus, tell a story of his life or death, discuss a miracle or teaching?"

"Isn't it strange the man who writes most of the New Testament and tells us all how to live, think and believe about Jesus, never met him, while the Twelve who did, vanish into thin air and write nothing/"

"If Herod killed all the little children under two to get at Jesus, who escaped, can we not say the little children had to die for Jesus before he died for them?"

"How come Herod couldn't follow the Star of Bethlehem himself to find Jesus, but sent others to report back when they found him?"

"How could Mary leave town after being warned of Herod's intentions and never tell the women in the town, their kids were about to be butchered?"

"How could Jesus family flee to Egypt sometime during the first two years in one story but go home to Nazareth quietly after 40 days in the other?"

"How come in Mark 3 Mary and his brothers came to get Jesus and take him home because they thought he was "mad" which I assume means insane. Did Mary forget who he was and how he got here?"

Problems with the Flood - Origins of the Water

2007-05-29T18:21:00.000+08:00

A Letter form a certain Michael Paylor

2007-04-20T16:11:00.000+08:00

It’s been a long time that I have visited this blog. Whew! And to think that election time is getting nearer. I’m maybe a little busy on other things lately.

While visiting my blog I came to see this letter from a certain Michael Paylor. The letter was on the comment section but I think it’s interesting to post it here. Oh by the way, I didn’t make any edit on his letter so you guys can read it as how it was written on the comment section. I just divided it by section so I can put my comment on his correspondence.

Michael Paylor: Hello! I was doing some research and came across this site. I
looked at the "Why Christians are Delusional" video and found some irrational
and illogical arguments posted on behalf of the video's orignator. That provoked
me to look at some other aspects of this site.

John the Atheist: I think he was talking about the video I got from You Tube. Well Mr. Paylor didn’t give us a good detail why he thinks the video is irrational and illogical, but I guess it’s just his style.

Michael Paylor: I must admit, it can be, sometimes initially intimidating to
look at atheist websites or to engage in dialogue with individuals who have
opposing views on who God truly is and whether he exists. I had to swallow hard
before I viewed the site. Not because I'm afraid that I'll be proven delusional,
but because I fear that I may not be able to present arguements in a clear and
concise manner. Despite the fact that I am a Christian, I am no more man than
you are. I applaud your desire to think and to want others to think as well.

John the Atheist: Thanks Michael.

Michael Paylor: One of the flaws that I see in "visible"
Christianity is that there are many who treat the knowledge of God with more
feely sentiment than thoughtful reflection on what God has said about Himself
and mankind through the Bible. It is my desire that men would think, as well.

With that, it is incumbent that you as a "propagator of truth" to make
sure that you both read AND understand what you've read so that you can
accurately present the information to your readers. In the few postings that
I've read as you've tried to present a criticism of Jesus (as being good and
moral) and in saying that the commandments/laws of God (as presented in the
Hebrew Scriptures an reiterated in the New Testament Bible) are not good, you've
not been careful to read and understand. When you do that, you show yourself to
be a purveyor of what is untrue and misrepresent the Bible, those people who
believe what it says, and God Himself.

John the Atheist: It’s is quite strange that you called me a “propagator of truth”. But I can smell sarcasm on a Christian mouth. Anyway, what are written in my blog are my opinions concerning religion.

Now do you really desire for man to think or are you trying to squeeze your ideas of your God? You accuse me of being a supplier of misinterpretation of the Christian Holy Book. Why? Because I didn’t make a good picture on how you would like your Bible to be seen by the public? Remember your own word… “those people who believe what it says”. So is that the same as saying…”He guy, you didn’t present to your readers what we (the believers) what we want to believe.” Boy that’s full of crap. Maybe you would like me to picture our book in the way you want people to see.

Now let’s see your claims.

Michael Paylor : I'll just offer two examples as jumping off points for
potential future dialogue. Exodus 22:29-30 is not calling for human sacrifices.
It absolutely is calling for animal sacrifices, which God declared necessary as
a symbol for what the Hebrew people (and, consequently, all mankind) needed.

John the Atheist: So Exodus 22: 29-30 is about animal sacrifices huh? Well according to whom, to you? Let see what Exodus 22:29-30 says: 29Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me (KJV)

Oh! The Bible in Basic English is clearer! 29 Do not keep back your offerings from the wealth of your grain and your vines. The first of your sons you are to give to me. 30 In the same way with your oxen and your sheep: for seven days let the young one be with its mother; on the eighth day give it to me. (BBE)

Now first who does this god is talking to? Don’t tell me that this god is talking to the animals. The commandment is clear that you have to give your first born son to this god. Are they going to be given to God by serving in the temple? Well the commandment says that in the same way with your oxen and your sheep. Now how do you offer oxen and sheep to this god? Don’t tell me they are proffered desk jobs on God’s branch office?

Now here’s something that bugs me. If you will insist (like those other Christians that told me) that they are going to be given to God by serving the temple. If your son (like those animals mention) will be with his mother for seven days and on the eight day your first born will be given to God…well the Bible is quiet in relation to where the 8-day old kid will be nurse. Remember, we are talking about an 8-day old child. Maybe you can explain to me, if such offering doesn’t mean being killed, then who will take care of the toddler? The whole Book of Leviticus doesn’t tell us that they are nursing all those babies “sacrifice” to the Hebrew god. Also we don’t have any verse in the Bible that supports the idea that the word “given to God” is a metaphor of some religious ritual.

What is stranger is the fact why you need to give compensation for your first-born (Exodus 34:20 - 20 A lamb may be given in payment for the young of an ass, but if you will not make payment for it, its neck will have to be broken. For all the first of your sons you are to make payment. No one is to come before me without an offering. 21 [BBE] )? What are you trying to pay for? And what is the connection of Ezekiel 20:26 in this law? The ISBE says that it is a clear evidence of the spiritualization and humanization of religion among the Israelites is furnished in the replacement, at an early stage, of the actual sacrifice of the firstborn by their dedication to the service of the Hebrew god. So does that mean once upon a time, the Hebrew god did required babies to pass to the fire?

Michael Paylor: When God refers to the firstborn, it was a
consecration or a setting apart unto God that He demanded. This would be a
continual reminder of both God's sovereign right to rule the Jewish nation and
an acknowledgment that the firstborn son held a special place of entitlement to
God and the nation. If you look at the firstborn concept in that part of the
world, he was an important family member. He would take over his father's
inheritance and look after his mother should his father meet his demise. This
also was necessary to prepare the Hebrew people for what the Hebrew people
needed. God didn't overlook the concept of the firstborn in his interaction with
His people Israel. In fact, the "firstborn" would be essential in securing the
liberation that the Jews (and eventually, other nations) sought after.

John the Atheist: Nice rationalizing Michael…but I will let your God speak on his own case. Ezekiel 20:26 25 And further, I gave them rules which were not good and orders in which there was no life for them; 26 I made them unclean in the offerings they gave, causing them to make every first child go through the fire, so that I might put an end to them. (KJV) (Passing through fire means burnt offering sacrifice.)

It only means one thing Michael; your god is capable of giving such laws. But don’t take it from me, it’s in the Bible. It seems human butchering appease the Bible god. Just read the story of Abraham and Isaac. To prove Abraham’s faith and obedience to the Hebrew God, he was ordered to sacrifice his own son Isaac as a burn offering. In 2 Sam. 21:1-9, David sent seven innocent men to their deaths "whom the Lord did choose" in order to appease God and end a three-year famine. How about Micah 6:6-7 which says, “Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

Well let us also include the big piece of the Christian cake, God allowing his own begotten son to be botched as payment to the sins of the world. It seems blood offering is a part of your god’s ritual.

Michael Paylor: Next, you cite texts on slavery and say that God is
"immoral" because He permits (you say promotes) slavery rather than abolishing
it. The word slavery is used as servants and in many instances is easily
comparable (though not precisely) to the modern day employer/employee
relationship. Therefore, God was declaring that men (His men) are to obey their
bosses, work well and hard, and demonstrate a certain upstanding character. This
was to show these "masters" a practical picture of transformation by God, which
was supposed to have occurred in God's men. You must note that since many of the
first Christians were Jews living under Roman domination, there was little love
lost between them. So then, how would it look for a once hostile Jew to now
submit themselves to loyal service to his boss, both to the gentle and harsh (I
Peter 2:18)? It would look like something wonderful, unusual happened. Perhaps
that master would inquire about it and find out what he needed to know for
deliverance!

John the Atheist: Here we go again! So slave is the same as modern day office personnel huh? Funny that The Living Bible uses the word slave than servant. I also think that the New International Version used the word slave rather than soft pedaling the word to servant. Hmmmm…it seems the translators of the NIV didn’t do a good sanitizing job. Here are some examples: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men....(Eph. 6:5-7, NIV).

"Slaves, obey your earthy masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord (Col. 3:22, NIV)."

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,....(Titus 2:9, NIV)."

Well…The thing is, what I’m trying to find out here is why Jesus and the rest of his gang is silent in the issue of slavery. Remember that the Jews seen the evil of slavery in the hands of the Egyptians. Now here’s a dilemma. You Christians insist that God is perfect and just…right? And that God is unchangeable. But it really doesn’t add up…You see God took the Hebrews out of Egypt because of the bind of slavery. God just doesn’t have the heart to see the Hebrews as slave. Now we’re talking of a perfect, just god here are we? Then I read this on Josephus Flavius, “…for they not only made slaves of the bodies of their enemies, but subdued their minds also, and after this battle, became terrible to all that dwelt round about them.” (The Antiquities of the Jews/Book 3/Chapter 2/Section 4) Now if you will say that it is only natural from victorious people to plunder and make their enemies as slave…well then what does having the Judeo-Christian god differ to the natural effect of human nature? The only law that I saw in the Bible that will benefit slave abolition is the Feast of Jubilee. Yet why wait for a feast? If you’re a benevolent deity, slavery is really not your cup of tea.

Beside, why call your boss as master? Is a boss really equivalent to a master? A boss…in a modern day employer/employee relationship is a person who exercises control over workers. We’re talking about a person who hires or supervise workers (not servants or slaves.) You don’t call your boss a master…unless you’re in 1940 Nazi Germany and you’re a Jew. A master is a person who has general authority or dominion over others.

Now isn’t it sardonic that you can’t find a book, a chapter or a verse in the New Testament that says “Masters release your slave because no one has any dominion over another person.”

Michael Paylor: I am very excited, if not a little nervous, to hear back
from you. I hope that we can discuss these matters in depth.

That’s Christian reasoning.
What’s the problem with Biblical exegesis is that everyone can interpret it in the fashion that is comfortable to their belief. If they want that the Bible says that God don’t permit human sacrifices. ZAPPPP!!!! Human sacrifices are gone! If they want the Bible condole slavery…with a wave of the magic wand, everything is sweep under the rug! You can demonstrate anything you wish from the Bible!

ciao!

John the Atheist

Bible Babbles

2007-03-23T07:47:00.000+08:00

Ok, Ok …I find it quite interesting why some Christians prefer one Bible to another. Well have you guys notice that? Some Christian prefers to use the King James Version rather than NIV and vice-versa.

Well that’s really an obvious problem po. You see guys, most Fundamental Christians are expose only on the devotional side of bible study. Some po na medyo advance sometimes reach the Homiletical approach. Rarely does a Christian fundy reach the expositional level. Frankly speaking, it’s the ADD of Ely Soriano who was exposed in Expositional. Sa aking pakikipag-salamuha sa iba’t ibang Bible Study, I see that the St. Peter’s Society of Men , yung bang Catholic group sa Quiapo ang medyo expose sa Exegesis approach. Yet there are very few who are into the Critical approached in bible study.

In the Critical Approach po eh ipag-sasama-sama natin ang textual, form, reduction, narrative at social criticism sa Bible. Plus Exegesis and the grammatical history. Sa totoo lang, napaka-konting “Born-Again” Christians ang involve sa Critical Approached…hmmmm…naturally, you don’t have to study Biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic and in-depth Bible history to accept Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior.

Fortunately I have a spare time to study it.

Now back to our topic on the KJV.

I was wondering why majority of Christians think that the KJV is the nearest to the original Autographia? Well sa group naman na ito wala namang nag-paliwanag. Ok, so does the KJV was really a direct connection from the Hebrew book?

The KJV was a work of 47 scholars under the authorization of James Stuart of Scotland. Kasi King James wanted to revise yung Bishop Bible of 1568. So sa madaling salita, the KJV is just a revision of the Bishop Bible.

If you will trace the history, everything will boil down to the Latin Vulgate. But is the Latin Vulgate a direct copy from the Hebrew book? The answer is no. The Latin Vulgate was copied from the Greek Septuagint.

Now here’s the problem. The Greek Septuagint was not considered a sacred canon by the Jews. The Council at Jamia declared that books written in foreign tongue and those that were written after the time of Nehemiah were considered to be not inspired by God.

The Jamia Council passed criteria in order to know what books shall be canonized. The 4 criteria were:
1. They have to be harmonized with the Torah
2. They have to be written before the time of Nehemiah (c. 400 BCE)
3. They have to be written in Hebrew
4. They have to be written in Palestine

Since the Septuagint was written in Greek, and was written after the time of Nehemiah and was written in the island of Pharos in Egypt, it was excluded.

What’s funny with the Septuagint Translation is that it sometimes disagrees with the Hebrew Text. The most famous is that of Isaiah 7:14. According to this verse: 14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Well this verse is famous since Christian uses this verse to prove the virgin birth of Jesus was already been prophesized in the Old Testament. Now this is a problem of poor translation. The word for virgin in Hebrew was betula. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 was alma which means a young woman. Greek translators use the word parthenos in the Septuagint thus changing the word from young woman to virgin, which is very different. But the problem also lie that the word parthenos doesn’t necessary mean a virgin as demonstrated in Iliad 2:514.

Another problem is that the KJV used the Majority Text and not the Critical Text. Well that means the KJV’s Greek is base on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is based on the Byzantine text. In those times kasi, the only way to re-create the translation is when you have the copy of the Complutensian Polyglot that was published in 1517.

The Dutch Humanist, Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536) published the first Greek text and this was to become the basis of future Bible pagdating sa Greek. Tinawag itong Textus Receptus (Receive Text) pero napakalayo nito sa original Autographia.

The Neutral Text ay ang pinakamalapit. Kasi it is base on the Alexandrian/Egyptian text. The Alexandrian Text is the base of the critical text that can be found in either the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament or the 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament. Ito ngayon ang naging basis ng NASB at ng NIV.

As top of the cake, ang KJV ay naisulat before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll in 1947. Kaya nga may mga so-called revisions ng KJV the New King James version of 1979 and the Modern King James version of 1999.

Now for a proof baka sabihin nyo babble lang ako ng babble hehehe!

Have you heard about the Johannie Comma (AKA Comma Johanneum)?

If you will read your KJV in 1John 5:7-8
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Other Bible doesn’t have this verse!

Have you try looking for it sa NIV or sa NASB. Sa Analytical-Literal Translation wala din po ito. Sa mga Bible lang na gumamit ng majority text makikita ito but not on those na translated sa critical text

Wonder why?

When Erasmus (remember him?) published the Textus Receptus there was a certain passage that Erasmus know was false yet kept it out of prudence and that both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches stuck to the spurious text out of honest bigotry. In his haste, Erasmus made a considerable number of translation mistakes. He was unable to find a manuscript containing the entire Greek New Testament, so he compiled several different sources. Kasama doon yung foot note. This is what is now known as the Johannie Comma.

It seems only the Vulgate and Erasmus has this. Yung ibang Bible na hindi kumopya sa Vulgate eh hindi sinama ito and left it as a foot note. 1 John 5:7-8 is not found on older manuscripts and ancient versions like the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic at sa unang edition ng Vulgate ni Jerome. Lumabas lang ito sa Greek version of the Latin Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215 together with other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John (2:17; 4,3;5.6 and 20)

Other examples are:
Mark 16:9-20 is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century and is in almost every manuscript of Mark’s gospel yet it is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts.

John 7:53 to 8:11. The famous story of the woman observed in adultery. It was inserted by an unknown author perhaps in the 5th century; Scholars believe that the story may have its origin as an oral tradition about Jesus. Manuscripts written before the 5th century doesn’t contain the story.

Revelation 1:11 is found in the KJV yet is not found in the original Greek text.

Now the following reasons are why I doubt the credibility of the King James Version. It seems the only reason why Christian use the King James Version is because of tradition and popularity. Nothing more…

I hope na may natutunan kayo sa post ko.

Your friendly neighborhood atheists,
John the Atheist