tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53124500822287113082024-03-13T15:30:30.213-04:00Debunking "EvilBible.com"BELIEVING IT, DEFENDING IT, PROCLAIMING IT.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-76573083608113441822010-09-26T21:18:00.010-04:002010-11-07T18:44:23.763-05:00CTS- Common Lies Christians TellOk, a few apparent lies that Christians tell. For the sake of being thorough I'll go through all of them, even the ones mentioned in the introduction. Before I begin, I'd like to make a point about lying. A lie is defined as "a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive". This means that Charlotte is accusing Christians of, completely on purpose, deceiving everyone that they discuss the following topics. That is one large accusation. I would contend that most, if not all, Christians don't fully understand the Einstein, Darwin, or American topics. Now I'll begin the explanations.<div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;">Einstein</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>This is a hotly debated issue. I'm not sure whether or not there is enough evidence to say it one way or another, but there are two basic conflicting views. Richard Dawkins (wrote "The God Delusion") sees Einstein as a pantheist, which he goes on to say is basically "sexed-up" atheism. He believes Einstein's use of the word 'God' was always used only in a poetic and metaphorical sense. On the other side of the issue, Susan Wise Bauer (wrote "The Well-Trained Mind") doesn't try to portray Einstein as a Christian, but argues that Einstein believes in one god and had a tendency toward deism. This view basically portrays God as a universal clock-maker, who winds everything up and then lets it tick without interfering. So those are the differing views, I'll post a few links below so you can see both sides. What we can say about Einstein is that he absolutely believed in the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. He also believed that religion and science can cooperate, they are not in contention.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;">Evidence for Jesus's Existence</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>First of all, the Bible is absolutely reliable as a historical document. Archeologists frequently discover artifacts that confirm the events recorded in the Bible. For a video on these findings click <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e20Cq5yob4">here</a>. The writings of Josephus, a Roman citizen who lives from c. 37-100 wrote about Jesus. He calls him "a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man", and says that he performs paradoxes and won over many Jews and Greeks. He even calls him the Christ. In a later writing, he also calls James the "brother of Jesus, who is the Christ". Many other early scholars reference "Christus", a Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". Justin Martyr mentioned an "Acts of Pilate", a record of some cases Pilate was involved in, but only Tertullian also mentions this. The evidence for the Bible and Jesus's historicity is to numerous to do more than touch on, so look around for yourself.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;">Darwin Recanted on his Deathbed</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>I don't believe this to be true. There is very little evidence for this. This story became popular when it was preached by an evangelical woman named "Lady Hope". She may have visited Darwin, but if she did it is most likely that she did so around 7 months before his death. At this point in time he would not have been bedridden as she had said, and therefore was unlikely that he was studying the Bible then. As Charlotte said, his daughter opposed this and his wife made no comment on it. It's likely she would have, as she was worried about the "godless nature" of his views. This doesn't rule it out entirely, but it doesn't have the background to be stated as fact.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;">Evolution is false (or only a theory)</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>This is an interesting one for sure. I agree that micro-evolution is as close to a fact as you can get with our limited knowledge. All it does is explain the variation we see every day as humans. Charlotte goes on to admit that<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">macro evolution remains a theory</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">"</span></span>, and then contends that it is a fact (by saying "EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN"). I know a certain line of resources (look to the right) that would contend otherwise, and with scientific observations of their own. The theory of evolution by natural selection is at this point in time filled with far too many holes to be assumed to be a scientific fact. I'm also going to stray away from saying it is a flat-out falsity because of the evidence on the other side of it. Hopefully time will tell, but for now, Christians saying it's only a theory aren't lying.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;">Atheists Have No Morals</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Once again, Charlotte using a statistic to prove her point and does not give a source for it. It is a gross generalization to say that no atheist alive has morals, so I don't agree with this statement. I do, however, take issue with Charlotte's accusations that Christians cause true immorality (genocide, slavery, etc). I've already disproved the slavery point, see <a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery-in-bible.html">here</a>. I've also argued many times that genocide is not often caused by Christians, but when it is there are absolutely not following the Bible's teaching. The only wars backed by God were against societies taking part in extreme immorality (demon worship, human sacrifice, sodomy, etc).</div><div><br /></div><div>Regarding women's suffrage, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union was one of the most influential groups pushing women's rights. Eleanor Roosevelt, a huge influential leader, was a theist (although not a Christian). The Christians who believed that women should not vote misunderstood the historical context of verses like 1 Corinthians 14.35 and Colossians 3.18. Women do have a different God-given role than men, but that is a different topic.</div><div><br /></div><div>Back to atheists' morals. The Bible teaches that "the Law is written on our hearts" (Romans 2). This would imply that every person, unless their conscience has been severely fragmented by sin, has a basic moral awareness. Furthermore, many values consistent with Christianity are encouraged in our society. However, an argument exists that atheism, if left unchecked, will cause moral deprivation. If there is no God, there exists no standard for ethics beyond what is helpful for society. When no objective standard exists, it is easier to argue that choices like homosexuality, bestiality, abortion, prostitution, etc can do no material harm to society. In fact, one of the only atheists against gay marriage is Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who has been labeled a hypocrite by fellow atheists. Food for thought.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;">United States Founded on Christianity</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Charlotte is correct here, but I'm going to add some perspective. There is no disputing the fact that the majority of the founding fathers and colonists at the time were Christians. This means that America was founded on a number of biblical Christian values (equality, respect, etc). However, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all deists. They believed in a generic god, but did not accept orthodox Christianity. Charlotte is correct, one of the principle reasons for the voyage to America was freedom of religion. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: State sponsorship is not conducive to a strong Christian faith. There's no need for Christians to push this idea. This "lie" is likely based on ignorance, not deception, I've not met one Christian who knows the information I just posted above. Atheists, please inform my brothers of this respectfully, there are not lying to you.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;">There Are No Atheists In Foxholes</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>You can wikipedia this to understand it. This is meant as an expression, not a statistical fact. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, which Charlotte referenced, stands against the use of this as a statistic. It's simply meant to show that many people re-evaluate their positions on God's existence when under circumstances of extreme stress. This common idea is backed up by the experiences of people who encounter NDEs, or Near-death experiences. I've posted a link below for some information about atheists in particular who encounter this phenomenon.</div><div><br /></div><div>Near-death experiences: <a href="http://www.near-death.com/experiences/atheists01.html">http://www.near-death.com/experiences/atheists01.html</a></div><div>Einstein opinions:</div><div><a href="http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/02/08/was-albert-einstein-religious/">http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/02/08/was-albert-einstein-religious/</a></div><div>Historicity of Jesus:</div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_sources">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_sources</a></div><div>Julia Gillard: <a href="http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/atheists_against_gay_marriage">http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/atheists_against_gay_marriage</a></div>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-60523635572899534992010-07-07T21:41:00.009-04:002010-09-26T21:14:26.737-04:00CTS- Christians Are Hypocrites<div><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Ok</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, so Charlotte opens up this article with an accusation that she has "</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">yet to meet ONE who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree." She cites marriage laws, prayer in schools, and commonly ignored teachings as evidence of this hypocrisy. However, she forgets one of Christianity's principal doctrines: Our sinful nature. We are imperfect beings, being Christian doesn't change that. When you put your faith in Jesus Christ, it your sin is no longer held against you. Then, the process of sanctification begins, where God begins to make us holy. This process is completed when we die. Along the way, mistakes are made. Expecting perfection in this lifetime is simply unreasonable. Because of this, keep in mind that there are times where I will agree with Charlotte, it's a shame that we can't be better examples of Christ. However, that doesn't mean the Bible is evil, far from it. It's the ideal standard, something to strive for throughout your life. With that in mind, I'll move on to her specific examples.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Marriage</span></span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Charlotte begins with the claim that Christians are not allowed to divorce, unless one spouse commits adultery. Let's start by looking at Deuteronomy 24:1-3. The situation offers no specific criteria for a divorce beyond finding "uncleanness". Matthew 19 is one of the verses </span></span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">evilbible</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">.com cites for its argument here. Let us look at some word meanings in the verse, shall we? "Consequently they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate". Man used here is </span></span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">anthropos</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, meaning a human being. Separate means come between. This is a verse showing that no person has the right to come between a married couple in any way to mess with their marriage. Let's move on now to verse 8. Jesus says that divorce was permitted because of men's hearts. He reveals the true issue, man's failure to keep within God's intentions, especially regarding marriage. The entire problem of divorce is people making bad choice, and failing to find God's will for their relationships. Here's a great article about divorce: </span></span><a href="http://christiandivorce.1hwy.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">http://christiandivorce.1hwy.com/</span></span></a></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Prayer in Schools</span></span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The issue of putting prayer in schools is a political one. It is not supported one way or another by the Bible. I'm of the opinion that prayer should be kept out of public schools because I believe involuntary religions actions cause contempt toward that religion. In short, it's more conducive to a saving faith in Christ to have other people share it with them then force them to pray. Now, Charlotte cites some verses with some misconceptions attached to them, so I'll clear that up now.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Matthew 6.5-6: This is Jesus correcting the Pharisees' motives. The Pharisees' were very proud of their "holier than thou" image. When people see them praying constantly, they will be looked at as more religious. They were praying so that people would accept them and look at them with awe, instead of to connect with their creator. It's not about where to pray.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">1 Corinthians 11: This requires some historical context to understand correctly. In ancient Corinth, it was customary for women to wear veils and for men to leave them uncovered. Veils were a sign of submission. God calls women to submit to men because He 'programmed' men with the call and ability to lead. There were issues with women spurning the symbol of their submission, and leadership in churches were being upset. Also remember the common views of men and women in that day. The church would not have been taken seriously if women dominated it.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">More Commonly Ignored Teachings</span></span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">1) Essentially the same issue as the Corinthians passage above. Long hair for men can have various implications. The idea is to not confuse the roles and men and women, looking like a woman was always considered cross dressing by the Roman culture. God created men and women differently for a reason. 'Unisex' messes up that balance. It is no longer considered cross dressing in our culture, merely a different style. Because of this, long hair no longer threatens the balance of leadership. Jesus had long hair because of the religious significance of it in a completely different culture, the Hebrew one. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">2) Keep this passage in context. Paul is writing a letter to the Corinthians, a relatively new church at the time, in an age where women were not looked at as leaders. To allow women to lead the church at such a time would give nonbelievers further reason to look away from it. Women simply were not accepted as leaders. Obviously, their role has changed significantly in recent history. I believe that men are primarily called to be leaders because of how we are 'wired', but the culture's view of women has changed so they are accepted as ministers.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">3) </span></span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Ok</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, Charlotte believes Christians are prevented from cross-dressing. The verse said that men were not to wear women's clothing, and vice-</span></span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">versa</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. Pretty straight forward, but Charlotte does not account for intent. God created us as men and women on purpose; attempting to look like the opposite sex is the equivalent of believing you know better than God who you truly are. Think of the rationalizations you hear from transsexuals, "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body". Your body should be God's, not yours. However, Charlotte claims hypocrisy by seeing women in pant suits. These garments are designed in order to look professional, not to look like a man. Many pant suits are designed for women now, making it not cross dressing.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">4) The next argument is the repetition of words during prayer, such as "amen" or "yes, Lord". Charlotte has missed the second part of the verse, the intents of the repetitions. Jesus is condemning hypocrisy, or repeating "amen" in order to seem godly to the people around you. This is the same principle as the Pharisees praying in public places.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">5) There is a misconception of the phrase "if any of you has a dispute with another" here. This verse is applicable when the dispute is between to Christians, not Christians disputing nonbelievers. When Christians take issues into court, it damages the unity of the church. Paul wrote this command to Corinth because this was a prevalent issue at the time. Now, when Christians take things like school prayer and abortion to court, the goal is to get the federal laws changed, something the church cannot do. That's a political dispute, not one that the church is called to step in the middle of, and doesn't hurt the church's unity.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">6) This challenge has to do with the way women dress. They are commanded in 1 Timothy to dress modestly and discreetly, and Charlotte challenges that being followed today. Modesty is commanded so that men's eyes won't wander and they won't commit a lustful sin. On the other hand, they are commanded to dress discreetly so that there is not a tendency to use clothing to call attention to oneself. Immodesty is wrong, and you should point it out if a Christian is dressing immodestly. The purpose of being discreet has changed with the times, this is more of an intentions issue. So judge for yourself (not others).</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">7) Charlotte says this is "perhaps the mother of verses ignored". The infamous "judge not, lest ye be judged". This is also the mother of all verses taken out of context. When read correctly, the verse is saying that if you judge others, you must be held to that same standard. It's an anti-hypocritical verse. It doesn't mean we should avoid judging anyone at all costs. If your neighbor has been arrested for murder and charges were mysteriously dropped, it's probably a good idea to judge that you shouldn't allow him/her to babysit your kids.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">8) Jesus frequently uses hyperbole in order to make a strong point to those listening to him. He doesn't ask people to literally hate every part of their lives, but they should make their number 1 priority God, not their personal comfort.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">9) First of all, law enforcement is not a biblical issue. Law enforcement exists to protect the integrity of a nation, the New Testament is more concerned with peoples individual lives. Jesus was instructing the people not to retaliate against wrongdoing with wrongdoing because that helps no one.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">10) The Catholic church uses the term "father" to recognize where the priests authority comes from. This is Jesus reminding people that God loves them and watches over them more than any regular man has a capacity to do. It's not a literal command.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">11) This is correcting a mindset issue with believers. Look at verse 25 in Matthew 6, it says "do not worry". Excessive worrying in unnecessary because God is in control, that doesn't mean don't be prepared.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">12) This is an objection that has been answered several times before. The Old Law is still in effect, but not for Christians. Accepting Jesus Christ releases us from the Old Law, so we will not be judged accordingly. Non-believers do not have Jesus Christ interceding on their behalf, so they will be judged according to the Law. Look to past posts for a full explanation.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">13) I'd like to know where Charlotte got this stat. She lists no source. As far as I know, most Christians only consult 'mystics' who claim to be in touch with God. Either that, or they don't really understand mysticism. Other than that, Charlotte is correct, consulting mystics is a mistake.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">14) This is one of the laws that was specific to the Israelites. This tithe helped them maintain the temple ceremonies that they performed. It's not applicable to society today. It's not a bad standard for giving to the church, most churches survive off of donations in order to fund ministries and missions. It's a charity thing, and its through God-given gifts that were are able to make money, so we should be willing to give back.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">15) If you simply look at the beginning of the verse, you will see that the tattoos were given in order to honor the dead. Many other tattoos in this time period also pertained to other religions. This puts the command in a different light. Furthermore, the motives on getting the tattoo can determine whether or not its a good decision. These "Mexican Catholics" Charlotte mentioned seemed to be setting themselves apart as Christians, so what's wrong with that?</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">16) This was another command specifically for the Israelites during this time period. You have to look at the historical context and see if they are focused on principle or current culture. This was a political law, it establishes no spiritual principle.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">17) Again, a cultural law. It made sense at the time because they didn't have the methods of cooking that we have now to kill all the bacteria in pork. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">18) This takes some historical context to understand. One of the most important things to people during this time period was the family name. If the brother dies before he has children than there is no opportunity to continue the family line. This way his brother is doing him a favor and continuing his family for him. Seems weird to us now, but it made sense then. Also, this way the family had a provider.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">19) This seems weird to us because of the culture norm regarding sex now. God created sex for only a husband and wife to have within a marriage relationship, in order to reproduce and connect with one another. Fornication is a perversion for that, so both perpetrators must deal with the consequences. Now further sex isn't a sin (barring adultery).</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">20) This is actually the same basic thing is #19. The word the </span></span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">NIV</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> has translated as rape is </span></span><i><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">shakab</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">meaning "to lie down". The word usually used to mean rape is </span></span><i><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">taphas</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, meaning "to take hold of". So it makes more sense in context to simply mean intercourse, making it the same as number 19. This issue is more fully explained in the article "Rape In the Bible" (click </span></span><a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-in-bible.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">here</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">).</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">21) The insult to Jews will be ignored. As for the rest of Charlotte's objection, this is a cultural command again. There are a variety of thoughts on the purpose of this law. Cain and Abel's dispute involved a dispute over flax vs. wool. This mixture was a staple of Canaanite culture, and God frequently sets His people apart in this ways. Linen is water resistant while wool shrinks, so this could cause a variety of issues including hygiene. As for the beards, the rounded beard was a part of Egyptian and Arab culture. They would round off their beards in order to show worship to their gods.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">22) Again, a cultural command. A bastard in the historical context is a child between and Israelite and a foreigner. God had commanded them not to intermarry with foreigners because of the influence of the false gods that they worshipped and various other customary issues. There was a consequence for disobedience. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Finally, a word on Charlotte's closing attack. I would advise any Christian faced with this situation to ignore the person questioning them. Charlotte is advocating a blatant attack on the Christian faith, a lack of tact, and a lack of respect for the beliefs of millions and millions of people. These type of people aren't going to accept that Christianity holds water no matter how much debating you do, so don't indulge them. Simply my two cents, judge for yourselves.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Shatnez (wool and linen) information: </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez</span></span></a></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Christians and Courtrooms: </span></span><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/1cr06-01.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/1cr06-01.html</span></span></a></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">About women in church: </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; "><a href="http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/9601a.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/9601a.html</span></span></a></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Another view on marriage: </span></span><a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f004.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f004.html</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">and another:</span></span><a href="http://www.actsweb.org/daily.php?id=68"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> http://www.actsweb.org/daily.php?id=68</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Hair length: </span></span><a href="http://www.gotquestions.org/hair-length.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">http://www.gotquestions.org/hair-length.html</span></span></a></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Another point of view on this article (Note the 6 parts): </span></span><a href="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/atheism-evilbiblecom-theists-suck-and.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/atheism-evilbiblecom-theists-suck-and.html</span></span></a>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-10601601982292155932010-03-26T13:07:00.010-04:002010-09-26T21:13:16.219-04:00CTS- Absurb Torah Science<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Again Charlotte steps into the world of science, not theology. This does not appear to fulfill evilbible.com's goal of proving that there is immorality in the Bible, but this is important to debunk nonetheless. Bear in mind the links to the right are very helpful in dealing with creation science. Many of these explanations encompass more than one of Charlotte's points, so I'll list the ones where it applies.</span></span><div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">1) Charlotte says that science tells us the order that things came into being, and that it was very much different that what it says in the Bible. Science determines these based on dating methods like carbon dating, proven unreliable time and time again. See links to the right for more information. This is also determined by the layers of soil in which fossils are found, but the fossils also tell the age of the soil (circular reasoning). Furthermore, these layers are very rarely found consistently in more than one place, and never everywhere.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">2) As shown in my article debunking "A day is a day" (click </span></span><a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2010/02/cts-day-is-day.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">here</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">), evening and morning come from Hebrew words that are used to show progression of time, not literal evening and morning shown by the sun rising and setting. As such, this objection is unfounded. Charlotte says "c</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">onsidering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun". That statement shows very little thought for the context. The context would reveal that the sun wasn't the source because it wasn't created until later. It makes no sense for those statement to be contradictory in such a small space.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">3) The day 2 creation was the sky, separating the waters of the earth from the waters of the sky. This is consistent with the most modern model of the pre-flood world, the canopy theory. Before the flood there was a coat of water in the upper atmosphere, which crashed down to help cause the flood. The obvious greenhouse effect created a world where the dinosaurs could live as well. Heaven was nowhere involved in the verse.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">4) "Plants are made before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes." Charlotte has left out that there was LIGHT, the very first creation. Furthermore, there was no death before the Fall, so the plants were likely supported by God as well.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">5) This was the land gaining living creatures and plants before the sea. There is also a creation model Charlotte is forgetting. God created things with apparent age. It says </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">"</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. " (Gen 1:12), and about Adam "So God created man in His own image". Man, not boy. Tree, not seed. Beyond the fact that they had apparent age, we don't know how old they were in comparison to one another, but perhaps science has told us. God created the sea with more apparent age than the land.</span></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">6) Charlotte used an unclear translation for this verse. Here's Genesis 1:20 in the NIV: </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." That should clear it up, shouldn't it?</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">7) This point, about ages of reptiles vs. mammals, goes right back to dating methods and apparent age, already addressed.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">8) These calculations are using a young earth perspective. With an old earth perspective, the numbers become much different. Beyond that, Charlotte is correct, a young earth perspective is shows a massive gap between itself and science's current timeframe, which goes up by another million or so every day.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">9) This, again, isn't taking into account the world before the Fall. Now, there are two possibilities here:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">1. Nothing ate meat before the Fall, very possible since with sin came death, and sin had </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">not yet come.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">2. This would be accurate even today. I don't think I need an energy pyramid to tell you</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">that energy, originally harnessed by plants from the sun, makes its way up the food chain</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">by predation, so predators are indirectly using the plants for meat.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">10) Again Charlotte ignored the old-earth interpretation. Maybe she thinks she shot it down permanently with the last article? Also, the links to the right should tell you about evolution, it's by no means a proven fact.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">11) Same thing, evolution being stated as a fact. See links to the right.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">12) Climate change would've killed the animals? Ignoring life before the fall again. Modern scientists believe that there was was a "mega continent" that split because of tectonic activity. This is consistent with a free-flood world. Furthermore, he named all the birds, livestock, and land animals. Many of the unknown animals now live in the water. Beyond that, bear in mind that there are many more animals that exist now than did before. Not necessarily because of evolution, but because of cross breeding, minor mutations, etc. About the phrase "none seemed to have what it takes to please him" is nowhere in the Bible. It says "for Adam, a suitable helper was not found." God's criteria, not Adam's.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">13) This is pure speculation. Maybe it had legs before this happened, and God made them go away? Impossible to say without admitting this is pure guesswork, but it's hardly evidence against the Bible. Also, eating dust is a figure of speech. When you yell "eat my dust" at someone during a race, you don't literally want them to bend down and begin consuming the dirt you've tramped on any more than was intended here.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">14) Nephilim is a Hebrew word meaning "Fallen One". They are the offspring of demons who had come down to earth, and human women. They would be abnormally tall and strong, hence the giants mentioned earlier. Charlotte claims a lack of evidence, but how do we know that the neanderthals found are not nephilim? I've cited a source at the bottom of the page that records archaeological evidence for their existence.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">15) Noah was able to build the ark, larger than virtually every ship in ancient history, because he had God's guidance. You think an all-powerful, all-knowing God wouldn't know how to build a big boat?</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">16) God was helping here too. He helped bring them to Noah, and the existence of only one continent certainly helps. We don't have very much information on what the pre-flood world was like, or the amount of species then, so this is entirely possible.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">17) Genesis never says all of the animals entered the ark on the same day. It says "on that very day, Noah's family entered the ark, and they had with them every wild animal according to its kind." THAT is referring to the day when the flood began, not the day that all of the animals entered the ark. As a rephrase: "Once they had every wild animal, they entered the ark."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">18) All the water came from the upper layer of water, separated on the 2nd day of creation. Canopy Theory explains this. This explains the flood completely. There is evidence for a flood, the links to the right explain that.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">19) Noah would've planned for this. The animals would have had to eat while on the ark, wouldn't they? Plants have been demonstrated to float, as shown by the olive branch brought back by the dove. Seeds have been shown to survive for some time in salt water (by Charles Darwin of all people), so plants could have survived. About the migration thing now. Has Charlotte forgotten Beringia? There existed a land bridge between North America and Asia. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Tectonics are commonly thought to have destroyed them, as well as flooding. Land is thought to have been much higher than it is now (Pleistocene for example). The link to Christian answers below helps explain this.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">20) It is common knowledge throughout the Christian community that Noah brought 7 of each clean animal, likely knowing this would happen (Genesis 7:2). That leaves some to repopulate.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">21) The rainbow is a sign of God's covenant to Noah. God uses it as such, and says "I have set my rainbow in the sky". God caused the rain during the flood, and consequently (not coincidentally) caused the rainbow, i.e. set it in the sky. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">22) The Bible is really the only thing that offers an adequate explanation for all languages. The best evolutionary explanation is that vocabulary and grammar evolved out of the grunts and hand signs of our simian ancestors. Somehow that results in a Chinese language with THOUSANDS of characters? I would also like a source for the history Charlotte is using. For all those curious for more info, including evidence for, Babel, look below.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">23) See #22</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">24) There are many possibilities here. First, the name could have been inspired by God, knowing that future readers would know it better that way. Second, it's possible that the name "Dan" was in use around the time of Abraham, but it didn't become it's formal name until later. It was called Liash later because of whose hands the city fell into. Third, there very well could be another Dan (possibly referred to in </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">2 Samuel 24:6; 1 Kings 15:20; cf. 2 Chronicles 16:4), situated near the source of the Jordan. It very well could have been a Phoenician city.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">25) Charlotte makes a point that seeings something during conception will not determine the pattern of the baby, and accuses the author of Genesis of believing that. She sites Genesis </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">30:37, but has missed chapter 31. Look at Genesis 31.9-12: </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> </span></span></div><div><p><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-883" style="line-height: normal; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: text-top; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">9</span></span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> So God has taken away your father's livestock and has given them to me. </span></span><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-884" style="line-height: normal; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: text-top; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">10</span></span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> "In breeding season I once had a dream in which I looked up and saw that the male goats mating with the flock were streaked, speckled or spotted. </span></span><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-885" style="line-height: normal; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: text-top; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">11</span></span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am.' </span></span><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-886" style="line-height: normal; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: text-top; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">12</span></span></sup><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> And he said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. </span></span></p></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Laban had been cheating Jacob for over 14 years, and God has seen this. He commanded Jacob to do what he did, and helped him out. It was a miracle, and much of genetics is determined by chance (God). The reeds didn't have anything to do with it.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">26) This is a very basic point. Israelites were only allowed to eat things that both divided the hoof and chewed the cud. Camels were not allowed to be eaten because they did not divide the hoof, the subject of debate here. The criteria for a "divided hoof" is a COMPLETELY divided hoof. The camels hoof does not divide the entire way through, and the bottom consists of a padded sole that is not divided at all. As such, it does not fit the criteria of a "divided hoof".</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">27) Again, the criteria for "cud" is in question. Hares have two kinds of stools. One is feces, or poop. The other is a mucous-colored green pellet which the rabbit licks off its anus (gross I know) and re-ingests. When cud is defined as un-digested matter, this certainly fits.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">28) The bottom link is helpful for this, 27, 29, and 30. Charlotte does not understand the taxonomic system employed in the Bible. In the Bible animals were classed by locomotion, as this creates much easier boundaries (but less accurate genetic ones, which they wouldn't have understood anyway). Flying animals are classified with birds, swimming animals with fish, etc.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">29) This is a translation mishap. This contradiction is only present in the KJV, as after it was compiled scholars gained access to older manuscripts. The work present in the KJV manuscripts is "owph" meaning fowl. In the more older manuscripts, the word is "seres", meaning creature. This makes the most accurate translation of Leviticus 11.20-21: "All flying creatures that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you..." aka bugs.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">30) This has to do with the same principle as 28. Animals are classified by locomotion, the most sensible way to do it in that time period. "Four-legged" creatures are the ones that do not walk or hop on two legs. This is created to differentiate the birds from the insects, as "seres" and "owph" are too general of words to be used without more detail.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">31) The King James Version is the only Bible translation where I see unicorn (It's not even in the New KJV). Every single other one refers to a wild ox. It's possible the unicorn described was a type of wild ox Job was familiar with, the unicorn we think of would not by any means be the same type. AiG believes that a unicorn very well may have existed (Job's version, not ours) so I'll cite the link below. Similar words to "re-em" in other languages directly mean "wild bull", so that translation is likely more accurate.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">32) The serpents are called "fiery" because of the effect of their bites. This could fit the description of many, many snakes known to us today. The Septuagint translates it as "deadly" rather than "fiery". </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Sources:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Fiery Serpents: </span></span><a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/serpentfiery.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/serpentfiery.html</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Unicorns: </span></span><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Nephilim:</span></span><a href="http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/GiantsInHistory.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/GiantsInHistory.html</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Post-flood world: </span></span><a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">City of Dan: </span></span><a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/509"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/509</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Babel: </span></span><a href="http://ldolphin.org/babel.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://ldolphin.org/babel.html</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Camel hooves: </span></span><a href="http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/camel_hooves.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/camel_hooves.htm</span></span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Hooves and Cud: </span></span><a href="http://ldolphin.org/contradict.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://ldolphin.org/contradict.html</span></span></a></div>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-87473400544351693462010-02-26T23:11:00.012-05:002010-09-26T21:13:27.664-04:00CTS- A Day Is A Day<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Here Charlotte has gone mostly beyond theology, into science. This is a theological blog, so I will focus on the claims that the Scriptures cannot possibly support an old earth interpretation. This is simply not true.<br /><br />The Hebrew word for day is "yowm". It has been shown to be used as a literal day or a figurative day, depending on the context it is used. For example:<br /><br />Genesis 2.4 : "At the time when God made the earth and the heavens." (Period of time, not day)<br />(Above is traslation in The Bible: An American Translation)<br /><br />How about the usage of "evening" ('ereb) and "morning" (boqer)? Surely these must show that it's a literal day, right? Wrong. They are used as a segment of time as well, such as in Psalm 55.17: "Evening, morning and noon I cry out in distress, and he hears my voice". Also in Daniel 8.26: "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given to you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future." Mornings and evenings are used frequently to show periods of time, not specific times of day.<br /><br />Boquer also doesn't always even mean morning. It is figuratively translated in the English Lexicon and The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew as "of bright joy after a night of distress". After all this, boqer and 'ereb can be the following:<br />Boqer: Ending, morning, dawning light<br />'Ereb: Beginning, evening, darkness<br /><br />After the meanings of "yowm", "boqer", and "ereb" are explained, it is clear that Genesis could be very easily interpreted as an age. Isaac E Mozeson is a Christian linguist. He, along with many others, holds that Hebrew is the language from which almost all others stem. Here's an excerpt from his book "The Word":<br /><br />"While the Hebrew Letter Yod'/Y is more likely to take an </span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I</span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">/i in Greek, the Yod takes an A in AEON as well as in AGONY. Any theological agony over the geological age of the earth is unnecessary, as YOM (Day-Gen 1.5) is better translated as AEON (an age). YOM is the term used in phrases like "ancient times" and "the middle ages".</span><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> Juma </span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">is a week in Swahili. YOM can infer any period of time."<br /><br />Helpful sources:<br /></span><a href="http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html#NTxMKhRBScih"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html#NTxMKhRBScih</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span><a href="http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br />Mozeson, Isaac E. "The Word"</span>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-56163422391666850692010-01-15T20:28:00.005-05:002010-02-04T13:20:37.742-05:00CTS- Biblical IntoleranceHere Charlotte is arguing that Christians are intolerant of others. Intolerance means a refusal to tolerate or respect anothers' beliefs. Charlotte takes this even farther to say that the Bible demands that Christians be intolerant to others. Then a list begins with many verses pertaining to intolerance of other religions, so here we go. These are not numbered, so I'm going to list them by verses. For this section, I'd like to make readers aware that if you follow another religion, than this section may be strongly offensive to you.<br /><br /><strong>Killing non-Christians:</strong><br /><br />Throughout the Old Testament non-Christians were killed because of worshipping other gods. Worship of other gods is worship of demons. From the very beginnings of civilization demons have been leading men astray using many methods. A very key one is possessing or conversing with humans to begin a new religion. For example, look at the many similarities between Mormon and Islam. For a list click <a href="http://www.bible.ca/islam/islamic-mormonism-similarities.htm">here</a>. It is the same thing with witches and other users of dark magic. Those powers are very real, but they come from pacts with Satan. These pacts are never worth it, the cost always far outweighs the initial power. These followers of other religions were killed so that people know the gods their families followed had no actual power. They were either worshipping demons or carved material. In the New Testament there are reminders that non-Christians will ultimately be judged and found guilty.<br /><br /><strong>Ignorance is bliss:</strong><br /><br /><strong>1) </strong>This verse says to not let the deceivers into your house or welcome them. Charlotte has interpreted "deceiver" to mean "non-Christian", which is not the case. John was actually writing a warning about false teachers. The teachers have claimed to be Christians, but preached heresy such as "Jesus wasn't <em>really </em>God" "All religions get you to heaven" and the like.m To allow heretics into your house would be the equivalent of inviting them to share their message, a lie.<br />2 John 1<br /><br /><strong>2) </strong>This is the same idea as 2 John above. Heretics were twisting Scripture and misleading people so that denominations without legitimate truth were being created, such as Docetists and Arianists. They did these things for their own benefits, so the Romans were to stay away from them so they weren't at risk.<br />Romans 16<br /><br /><strong>3) </strong>Again Charlotte makes empty insults, and misrepresents Scripture. "The verse see to it that you are not taken captive by <em>hollow</em> and <em>deceptive</em> philosophy." It wouldn't make sense to encourage Evangelism and then tell Christians to avoid philosophers, would it? The funny thing is, it says later "which depends on human traditions and the basic principles of this world rather than Christ". Sounds a lot like Naturalism, doesn't it?<br />Colossians 2<br /><br /><strong>Judge others for not following Christ:</strong><br /><br />Charlotte shows here a lack of understanding the process of Justification. When we accept Jesus Christ His blood fulfills the requirements of the Law, and were become "of God". The people who have not accepted Jesus have yet to fulfill the requirements of the Law because they cannot on their own. This is why people go to Hell. Recall that Scripture is inspired by God, this is God judging non-believers, not Christians. Also, as I've said above, in 2 John it is not referring to nonbelievers as deceivers and anti-Christs, it is referring to heretics of the Christian faith. As for non-Christians having evil hearts, all humans have evil hearts. Once we accept Atonement and are Justified, the process of Sanctification. This process continues throught the our lifetimes and it is only through this process that God purifies our hearts.<br /><br /><strong>Charlotte's favorites:</strong><br /><br /><strong>1) </strong>Charlotte's commentary was "Everyone will worship Jesus--whether they want to or not." Since when is bowing worship? Bowing your knee to Jesus is submission, not worship. Jesus has been exalted to the Highest Place because of His sacrifice on the Cross, and will be revealed in all His glory at the 2nd Coming. Jesus has so much glory that one can do nothing but submit, it's something that, once that time comes, you will be glad to do, not forced.<br />Phillipians 2<br /><br /><strong>2) </strong>Here the commentary was "you can't judge a Christian for a wrongful act". The key word is judge. This doesn't mean judge as in convict of a crime, but rather to make a statement about the Christian's relationship with God or personal character. It is reiterated many times that Christians make mistakes, we are human and forgiven.<br />Romans 8Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-91530593404693959772009-12-03T13:08:00.012-05:002010-01-14T13:16:32.726-05:00CTS-Do not ignore OTCharlotte is right here, the Old Testament is certainly not to be ignored. It shows the story of God pursuing man throughout history despite continual sin, and man's continual rejection because of convenience. That being said, this does not mean that the Law is still ruling over Christians, see below.<br /><br /><strong>1-10) </strong>You must understand the purpose of the Law to understand why we no longer are required to follow all of it. Many parts of it address things that would be wrong in a practical sense during the time period. Modern advances has reduced the need for such guidelines because this has become common knowledge, such as mixing cotton and linen in clothes. The Law is still in effect, Salvation is based on a legal system. All human beings are subject to the Law, which is why it endures, unless they call on the name of Jesus Christ and have accepted Him during their lifetime. All humans are sinful, so none will pass the Law without Jesus. The reason that Christians are not longer under the Law is because Jesus fulfilled it for them and created a New Covenant. This New Covenant is between God and Jesus coming on our behalf, and Jesus fulfilled his side with the crucifixion. This puts Christians under grace, not the Law. However, the reason we are still called to do things like abstain from sexual immorality, gluttony, etc is because they hurt our relationship with the Lord. We are now called to spread the Gospel and grow in relationship with Christ, which is our ultimate purpose.<br /><br /><strong>11) </strong>The first two are both examples of judgement commanded by God toward the Egyptians. It wasn't theft because the Israelites had been in unpaid slavery, this was at least some compensation. The next part was borrowing a colt, that's not stealing. Furthermore, it must be remembered that God created everything, so even that colt was ultimately His.<br /><br /><strong>12) </strong>The judging being condemned here is the act of passing judgment on another person based on your limited knowledge of them. The phrase Jesus used in John 7 is actually used to provoke thought. People are limited many times by what they see, and if they allow themselves to be limited like that then they cannot make a right judgement. Jesus is telling them to get past mere appearances, not to judge people.<br /><br /><strong>13) </strong>A better translation in 1 Corinthians is the one used in the NIV, it merely says earnestly desire. Coveting as used in Exodus is being jealous of another's possessions, rather than earnestly wanting. So, don't be jealous, but a holy desire is fine.<br /><br /><strong>14) </strong>The lying spirit mentioned in 1 Kings was Satan, and God was allowing Satan to test Ahab. Satan makes requests of God to test people, and God allows it, such as the case with Job. It wasn't God that was forcing them to lie, it was Satan and God was testing their faith.<br /><p><strong>15) </strong>Charlotte made a mistake here. The commandment says "do not murder" meaning do not wrongfully kill other human beings. All of the instances of killing throughout the Bible are a result of war or capital punishment. For a complete list click <a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/murder-in-bible.html">here</a>. </p><p><strong>16) </strong>Here Charlotte attempts to play the card of slavery. Slavery in Biblical times was not as we understand it now. Then it was what we now call indentured servitude. Families would sell themselves or children into slavery for a period of time in order to pay a debt, like Jacob did in order to marry Rachel. They were also not treated as badly because of the Bible's laws governing it. For a complete explanation with examples click <a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery-in-bible.html">here</a>.</p><p><strong>17) </strong>First of all, Luke 12:3 says nothing about improvidence. The giving spoken of in Luke 6 is generosity, not improvidence. Jesus is telling the disciples to lend to those who need it because they need it, not because you will get something in return. This type of generosity is pleasing to God. The improvidence condemned later is actual improvidence. Verse 6 reads: "The widow who lives for pleasure even while she lives is dead". This places the verse into the context of selfishness, the family is not being provided before because of the satisfaction of sinful desires.</p><p><strong>18) </strong>Anger is something acknowledged in the Bible, but not condemned. We are warned against it because it can cloud our judgement, but is not sinful in and of itself. We are told not be be well-acquainted with angry men because of their tendency to lack self control as well.</p><p><strong>19) </strong>Jesus is acknowledging a careful boundary Christians have regarding our works. We are to do good works for the benefit of mankind and to show the kind of things God can do through people because of Jesus. This is being light for mankind. The other side is doing good works for the purpose of getting patted on the back by men. We are supposed to do good works for general benefit and for God, not for men. Also, this is outside of the Old Testament, so why is his here?</p><p><strong>20) </strong>Charlotte did not incorporate the context into her interpretation of Matthew 6. Verse 5 reads: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for the love to pray standing in the synagogues and on street corners to be seen by men". God enjoy public prayer, but not when it is simply, like #19, for the sake of being seen as righteous. Jesus says go into your rooms and pray privately so that you don't fall to the temptation of doing it for show, not sincerity. God enjoys it greatly when people gather together in order to pray and learn because it shows their love for Him.</p><p><strong>21) </strong>Hair was important in ancient cultures as a sign of vitality and life. The Nazirites were a people God had set apart, like Sampson. He required them to grow out their hair in order to show their distinction, especially from priests who were forbidden to shave their heads but frequently trimmed it. This also showed their sanctity along with the other vows they had to take, prohibition from drinking wine and not being allowed to touch corpses. In the New Testament long hair was the modern day equivalent of cross dressing. Paul is prohibiting this because it encourages homosexuality and deciding you know better than God which gender you should be.</p><p><strong>22) </strong>In the OT the Israelites were circumcised to show that God had set them apart. Modern medicine also shows that circumcision decreases chances of infection and diseases. It was because of this requirement that people began to see circumcised people as more holy than others because the Israelites were God's people. The Galatians passage was reminding them that just because they were once set apart as an Israelite does not make them any better than others. That was a passage condemning pride, rather than condemning circumcision.</p><p><strong>23) </strong>It is not imperative that Christians keep kosher. Like I said, not every single law was intended to point out sin. There's a practical application here. The first source explains why we don't follow the Old Testament, but the reason for many of these laws of kosher were intended to preform a ceremony giving glory to God and to eat healthy foods. A new covenant is now in effect, so we don't need to keep these laws, and now our society has ways of making them more healthy. Peter's vision in Acts 10 was a metaphor used to remind Peter that God has now accepted all peoples. Peter understood the vision after he was given the opportunity to witness to a non-Jewish family. This fact is just a reminder of the intention of the verse, but Galatians and 1 Corinthians deal with kosher.</p><p><strong>24) </strong>Oaths are allowed. Taking oaths in God's name is a method of worship and confession. What God was acting against when He condemned it was taking His name in vain or asking Him to confirm a lie. People throughout the Bible took oaths in God's name. In Matthew Jesus was telling people not to take oaths based on earthly things because they will eventually pass away. This would implie the oath is temporary.</p><strong>25) </strong>Marriage is a good thing. This is a verse saying that God is impartial to couples versus single people. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the church, and there are many metaphors of marriage throughout Scripture. 1 Corinthians 7:2 even states that it is good for every man to get married because of all the immorality around, namely fornication. This is prevalent even today, just turn on the TV.<br /><br /><strong>26) </strong>This was already addressed in the article "Rape in the Bible". For that click <a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-in-bible.html">here</a>. Basically they have inserted a lot of words into the verse. To understand it you must understand the historical context. Virgins were considered "pure" and therefore allowed to live as a servant for the soldiers' households. Men were even allowed to marry them if they so chose, but never rape them.<br /><br /><strong>27) </strong>The link from layhands.com posted below is really helpful. Drunkenness is a sin because your judgement is impaired and you are very prone to additional sin. Drinking in moderation is not a sin, but for it not to be you must examine your motive for drinking. Drinking for a "buzz" is an early stage of drunkenness, or and fitting in is dealt with in James 4:4. Proverbs 31 uses win and beer as a symbol, obvious if you keep in mind the genre of the book.<br /><p><strong>28) </strong>Women do have rights. Men were appointed by God to be leaders of their families. The relationship of man and woman is representative of Christ and the church. Men are called to love their wives like Christ does the church, which would mean men aer to show their wives respect. When women become the authority in the house it gives a lopsided view of Christ and the church. This relationship does not by any means require that God only use men. God uses women throughout history both to show the Israelites that He is not limited by their expectations and to speak to a different audience. God sees men and women as equal.</p><p><strong>29) </strong>We are not to usurp authority unless they are going against God's will. All authority was put in place by God, be it to test our faith or to learn from them. God says "Be not servants of <em>men"</em>. He is just clarifying that we are ultimately under His authority, no righteous authority can go against His will.</p><strong>30) </strong>This was already answered in #1-#10 above.<br /><br /><strong>31) </strong>Already answered in #24 above.<br /><br /><strong>32) </strong>We are not required to keep the Sabbath day because of the New Covenant. Jesus had come to teach us the New Covenant and do away with the altered original Law that were keeping man from growing towards God because of fear of His commands. He came to save us, and didn't even violate the Sabbath. The Pharisees had messed up the Sabbath day with all kinds of restrictions, and Jesus was attacked for healing someone, not working for personal gain at all.<br /><br /><strong>33) </strong>A graven image here means an idol. An idol is an object of worship. "You shall worship none but the Lord your God". The Cherubim on the Ark were never objects of worship, therefore they are not the graven images described. The rest were also not objects of worship, they were made for the temple for worship of God.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><p><a href="http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/WhyWeDontFollowTheOldTestament.htm">www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/WhyWeDontFollowTheOldTestament.htm</a> <a href="http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/otl/">www.wcg.org/lit/law/otl/</a><br /><a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Nazirite">www.conservapedia.com/Nazirite</a><a href="http://www.layhands.com/CanChristiansDrinkAlcohol.htm">www.layhands.com/CanChristiansDrinkAlcohol.htm</a><br /><a href="http://www.hcna.us/columns/why_arent_christians_kosher.htm">www.hcna.us/columns/why_arent_christians_kosher.htm</a> </p>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-70376521268188911002009-11-17T13:14:00.011-05:002009-12-03T13:08:16.968-05:00CTS- End TimesHere Charlotte examines the many prophecies made by Jesus and His disciples concerning the End Times. Many are the same points reiterated by several people. Charlotte accused apologists as "weaseling out of it" by making the argument Jesus was speaking of His later apostles. Charlotte blatantly ignores the relative nature of the word "soon". She also interprets verses out of context in order to prove her point. She also uses phrases like "lives and dies on the resurrection and end times" which are nowhere to be found in the Bible. The Bible lives and dies on every verse disprove any one and it cannot be trusted. However, it has yet to really debunked, so that should say something. There's also a website which has a complete list of prophecies fulfilled modern day, for that click <a href="http://www.prophecyupdate.com/">here</a>.<br /><br />In many of these examples the word that Charlotte points out time and time again is the word "soon". She neglects to mention the subjective nature of the word. Keep in mind any amount of time relative to eternity would seem short. Also, the knowledge of the time period and the nature of the followers of Jesus must be kept in mind. Because of the disciples' deep relationship with the Lord, they were able to look at it from an eternal standpoint. Jesus also called His followers to "make disciples of all nations". Keep in mind that the Americas and much of the world were not discovered then, so this prophecy could not have been fulfilled yet at this time, there were nations not yet made disciples of. Now, let's get started.<br /><br /><strong>1)<em> </em></strong>All Jesus said was "You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and riding on the clouds of heaven". He never said you will live to see it, but even those in Hell will witness the End Times. He never said in his lifetime, either, merely "you will see". (<em>Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62)</em><br /><br /><strong>2) </strong>This first example could not be more out of context. Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and is prophesying that prophets and apostles will be crucified and flogged because of them. He finishes with "all things will come upon this generation" referring to these very Pharisees witnessing these acts against the church. <em>(Matthew 23:36).</em><br /><br />In the next part, Charlotte is fussing over the word roughly translated as generation. In fact, a more accurate translation would be tribe, meaning that Judah will never cease to exist as a distinct people, and they still have not. <em>(Matthew 24:20-35)</em><br /><br /><strong>3) </strong>The phrase Charlotte is now scrutinizing is the phrase "some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming into his kingdom". This is not referring to End Times at all, but rather to the Ascension that shortly followed the Crucifixion. Christ ascended into his kingdom to make ready a place for the church.<em> (Matthew 16:28)</em><br /><br /><strong>4) </strong>This is the same exact speech from Matthew 24 above. Jesus is referring to the line of Judas when he says generation, and they have yet to pass away. <em>(Mark 13:30-31). </em>Mark 9:1 is also the same thing as the verse in #3.<br /><br /><strong>5) </strong>Apparently Charlotte is unaware that the four Gospels are all accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. This is the same phrase as Mark 9:1 and Matthew 16. There were 500 people who witness the resurrected Jesus before he ascended to heaven, plus 11 disciples. <em>(Luke 9:27)</em><br /><br /><strong>6)</strong> Jesus does not in any way imply that John will survive until the End Times. Peter asked about John and he replied "If I want him to remain alive, what is it to you?" This is essentially "don't worry about him, just worry about following me." <em>(John 21:22)</em><br /><br /><strong>7) </strong>Again Charlotte fails to realize that the different Gospels are all accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. This has been answers already. The word that is roughly translated as generation can also be translated more accurately to mean race. Clearly, the Jews have not passed away, have they? <em>(Luke 21:25-33)</em><br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" class="Apple-style-span">8) </span>"Shortly" is a very subjective word. It is because of Jesus' influence on the disciples that they are able to see time through the knowledge of eternity. Eternity makes every other period time seem extremely short, hence the "soon" and "shortly". <em>(Revelation 1:1-3)</em><br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" class="Apple-style-span">9) </span>This is essentially the same idea as above. John was able to see the world through the knowledge that the world would pass away, but there was an eternity afterwards. <em>(Revelation 22:7, 12, & 20)</em><br /><br /><strong>10) </strong>First of all, let's clear up who, or what, the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">antichrist</span> is. The <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">antichrist</span> is Satan manifested as a human, much like Jesus was. He has done this throughout history in order to trip up God's people. John recognizes that Satan is doing this more often now because Satan's time is up on Judgment Day. Satan wants to stamp out the Christian faith, and does it in a number of ways including making it seem irrational, killing Christians, and twisting God's Word. No Christians means that Revelation's predictions cannot come true, and this is what Satan wants. <em>(1 John 2:18)</em><br /><br /><strong>11) </strong>Apparently Charlotte did not know the above statement, the fact that the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">antichrist</span> is Satan. Satan has been around longer than humanity has. He is still around today, deceiving those he is able to and "seeking whom he may devour". The spirit of the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">antichrist</span> is still around today. <em>(1 John 4:3)</em><br /><br /><strong>12) </strong>Again, Jesus is able to see time from an eternal standpoint. Everything would seem "soon", it's a subjective word. Soon is accurate as well because Jesus has called us to make disciples of all nations, and the more time we get the more people will end up in heaven. Because of the sheer number of non-Christians, we need time to accomplish this. <em>(Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 12 & 20)</em><br /><br /><p><strong>13) </strong>In Philippians Paul merely writes "the Lord is near". The Lord is always near to us, regardless of how close Judgment Day is. He is listening to our prayers and actively working in our society, so how could he be doing that and not be near? In fact, Judgement isn't even mentioned in Philippians 4. <em>(Philippians 4:5)</em> </p><p><strong>14) </strong>Paul has deemed our time and his the "Last Days" because all that is left for God to do is to set everything in motion for Final Judgement. These are the days between Christ's 1st and 2<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">nd</span> coming, and the title is also meant to give us a sense of urgency, because we don't know the "time or dates the Father has set by His own accord". <em>(Hebrews 1:2)</em><br /><br /></p><p><strong>15) </strong>Again, from an eternal standpoint the time between the early days of the Church and Christ's 2<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">nd</span> coming is not a long time. This language is also thought to be used in order to create urgency within the Church because every minute people die, and it is up to us to make sure those people are going to heaven.<em> (Hebrews 10:37)</em><br /></p><p><strong>16) </strong>Charlotte makes a large assumption here. Paul says "we who are still living" in the passage, and she interprets that to mean that Paul is sure he will be living when it happens. He merely means that he is alive at this moment in time, and, if it were to happen now, he would be brought into the sky with the saints. The rest of the passage is a prophecy. <em>(1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)</em><br /></p><p><strong>17) </strong>This is again one of Charlotte's arguments dealing with the word "soon". This subjective word must be understood in light of eternity. The only difference is that it is now James. <em>(James 5:8)</em><br /></p><p><strong>18) </strong>This is dealing with the word "soon" again. The only difference is it is now Peter. <em>(1 Peter 1:20 & 4:7)</em></p><p>Not even one of these can go without an explanation, yet more evidence for the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">inerrancy</span> of the Bible. These "contradictions" are pointed out either because of the use of the word "soon" or something being unclear because of grammar or translation.</p>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-70129405713508611992009-11-10T08:34:00.008-05:002009-11-17T13:14:20.812-05:00CTS-Evils of the TorahThis is Charlotte's first essay on the "evils" committed in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. To start off let us again point out that moral relativism, the belief that morals are subjective to the individual, is non-existent. This article in itself asserts that there are evils that cannot be denied as evil. For these to exist there must be a law that states as such, and for there to be a law there must be a law-giver. Any human created law will ultimately have flaws in it, which must leave the perfect law of a perfect God. Granted, if these turn out to actually be evil, that God will not be perfect, fragmenting the law, so let's take a look at a few of these examples.<br /><br />Gen 2. 16-47: God did not create us with rebellion, that was a product of the Fall. Adam and Eve knew full well what they were doing by disobeying. They put a created thing over their relationship with God, and Satan played a vital role in this. Remember, God never said don't touch it. They actually even could have picked all of the fruit and burned it if they wanted, but they didn't. Adam and Eve knew exactly what they were doing.<br /><br />Gen 3.16: This was a product of sin entering the world. Adam and Eve caused it, not God.<br /><br />Gen 4.3-5: This "favoritism" came from Abel being the one following God's commands, Cain was offering whatever he had left over. Read Gen 3, God gives guidelines. He even pursued Cain in verses 6 and 7 and reminded him he could still please God.<br /><br />Gen 7.23: Look back 1 chapter to Gen 6:5, "every inclination was evil to them". Every single person on earth, save Noah, had a heart that had no inclinations toward good any more. This revealed the need for a law, and to start again, they were beyond redemption.<br /><br />Gen 16.7-9: God never told <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hagai</span></span> to have any children, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Sarai</span></span> told Abram to sleep with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hagai</span></span>, her maidservant. He did this and Hagar got pregnant, so <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Sarai</span></span> mistreated her. God told <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hagai</span></span> that if she went back he would turn her into a great nation, so he was rewarding her obedience. Nowhere did God tell Abram to sleep with her, else this wouldn't have happened.<br /><br />Gen 19.23-25: Not only were they homosexual, the wanted to rape God's angels! They came to visit Lot in Gen 19.5 "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them to us so that we can have sex with them!" God is not a fan of rape.<br /><br />Gen 38.7: Isn't "He was wicked in the sight of the Lord" enough? A perfect God wouldn't lie.<br /><br />Gen 38.10: Incest is illegal sex within one's immediate family. This was only to take place because Er had no given Tamar a son, and that was seen as a dishonor, so it was fixed. Remember in the verse it says "to keep from producing offspring for his brother". He was killed for selfishness, not refusing to commit incest. He actually still had sex with her anyways, merely practiced birth control, defeating the purpose.<br /><br />Ex 12.29: The Egyptians were enslaving, beating, and murdering the Israelites. God was judging them for this. Each plague was also aimed at showing the lack of power of the Egyptians gods that they were worshipping, so maybe they would turn to Him. Dr. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Geisler</span></span>, a prestigious scholar, even says that God did not harden Pharaoh's heart directly, Pharaoh initiated the process which God then facilitated. For a better explanation click <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-pharaoh.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Ex 20.5 & 34.7: They apparently missed "forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin." in Exodus 34.7. Inherent sin is a doctrine well-explained within Scripture, for some information on sin click <a href="http://bible.org/article/doctrine-sin">here</a>. They don't have to be punished, God always provides a way out and that was denied.<br /><br />Ex 21.2-6: This has already been explained, see "Slavery in the Bible" <a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery-in-bible.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Ex 21.7: Explained again. Daughters were sold in order to pay off debts, and slavery in Bible times was what we know today as indentured servitude, not the slavery of America's history.<br /><br />Ex 22.18: God orders the death of these magicians because their powers come from Satan. They are relying on evil forces such as demons for their convenience, and manipulating the public.<br /><br />Ex 32.27: Harsh? Arguing with opinions has no merit, capital punishment was understood by all of the Israelites, and yet the did it anyway.<br /><br />Lev 20.9-10: Again, Charlotte is arguing with her opinions. They ignored the law and violated what God had commanded them, in spite of saving them from countless enemies and creating the very world we stand on. You can't validly argue against capital punishment with opinions.<br /><br />Lev 20.13: This is violating the purpose of sex, and doing something very unnatural. Homosexuality is condemned throughout scripture, more about this here. Women were created as a completion of man, the two to become one and reproduce. This violates the sanctity of marriage.<br /><br />Lev 21.16-23: First off all, let's clear things up. This is dealing with the duties of the High Priest. These blemishes are not allowed because people generally look down on those who have defects, thus injuring the influence of the High Priest. God simply knows how sinful people work.<br /><br />Lev 26.29: Charlotte put verse 30, but the quoted part is verse 29. God was predicting one of the results of the judgements of Israel for unfaithfulness, and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">was</span> fulfilled in 2 Kings 6:29. This is condemned, not condoned.<br /><br />Lev 27.28-29: This was a capital punishment for completely giving oneself to Satan, not at all a human sacrifice. Also, I've already dealt with human sacrifice in the Bible, click <a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/ritual-human-sacrifice-in-bible.html">here</a>.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Num</span> 16.31-32: Another verse issue. These men were punished for attempting a rebellion against Moses, God's chosen leader.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Num</span> 16.35: The princes were killed for heavy involvement in the rebellion. The rest of the people directly went against God's judgement and tried to kill Moses and Aaron.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Num</span> 21.1-3: The Israelites were migrating to a new land and were attacked by the Canaanites, who are frequently attacking them. God destroys them for attacking his chosen people, I suppose Charlotte objects to war?<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Num</span> 21.27-35: Again, Charlotte is objecting to war. These were nations committing the very acts the Bible <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">condemns</span>, such as human sacrifices, idolatry, sex slavery, etc. The Israelites were following God's commands of judgement, and the nations always could have joined the Israelites, there was a ritual established in which they could essentially become Jews, but they denied God's mercy.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">Num</span> 31.17-18: God had told the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Israelites</span> to attack the nation of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moab</span> because they had been practicing idolatry and trying to force the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Israelites</span> to do so.This, again, was war. They had won and taken the spoils, including flocks. However, they had also taken the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">Midianite</span> women, who they weren't supposed to. Throughout Scripture taking these women to be wives ended up in going against God and worshipping idols, like Solomon did. This is why God told them to kill the women. He spared the virgins because women captured through war were to be slaves, let free after a while. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Virgins</span> were, in God's eyes, considered clean. This was God showing mercy.<br /><br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">Deut</span> 3.3-7: It is worth pointing out that when the word destroy is used, it means giving over to the Lord. This was God's judgement of cities doing all the things EB condemns so easily, sacrificing humans, raping sex slaves, and worshipping false idols and demons. They were utterly destroyed because to keep some and integrate them into your society leads to pressure into worshipping false idols, which the Israelites were prone to do.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Deut</span> 7: This was, again, war. They were rival civilizations that hated the Israelites because of ties of their forefathers. The Lord ordered their total destruction because any sort of treaty and the cultures would begin to mix, and the other peoples would pressure the Israelites into worship of idols and false gods, resulting in things like human sacrifice. By the way, this is actually the beginning of chapter 7, not just verse 12. Verse 12 is actually talking about God's covenant of love with them.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">Deut</span> 20.16: This was for the exact same reasons as the last two examples. Other civilizations in the same area despised Israel because of how the nation was started, from a child branching of from lineages that can be traced through Genesis. See above.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">Deut</span> 23.2: The word "assembly" here means holding an office in Israel, not worshipping. Ruth was a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moabitess</span>, and became a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">proselyte</span> into the Jewish culture and was permitted to worship, wasn't she? Many Israelites weren't even permitted high offices, most were reserved for Levites.<br /><br />So ends Charlotte's first article, the attempt on showing various acts of evil within the Torah. God's law was perfect, and, like EB's article on murder, most every killing here falls within Capital Punishment, a commonly debated idea which Charlotte cannot condemn with the emotional argument found here. Keep in mind "Got Questions", "Reformed Answers", and "Resources for growing Christians" all have answers to some of these as well, so check them out.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-15044476000661183102009-11-09T13:57:00.003-05:002009-11-10T08:34:33.814-05:00Introduction to "Church of Theists Suck"This leads us to the second section of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">evilbible</span>.com, a list of essays copied from a website entitled "Theists suck". The fact that this is entitled with a name slandering the belief in any god whatsoever should tell you something about the author, Charlotte. She is an atheist woman who's tone in each of her essays is one of very strong anger. The fact that she names some of her sermons (as she likes to call them) "Christians are hypocrites", "Christians are liars", and "evils of the Torah" show that she obviously has the same impression EB did when they posted "Top 10 Signs of Fundamentalist Christians".<br /><br />This next section will be started with a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">CTS</span>-(name of article here) to show that it is a "Church of Theist's suck" article. I'll be taking a look at all the articles, beginning from the top down.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-4530866240575883752009-10-28T13:13:00.020-04:002009-12-09T12:49:57.823-05:00Ritual Human Sacrifice in the BibleAnother much pointed at article when it comes to the inerrancy of the Bible: the occurrence of ritual human sacrifice. Remember, reader, that merely because it is mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is condoned by God. Frequently these are followed by judgment because of disobeying commands. The same goes for any wrongful act that Scripture in other areas condemns. This is the case with many acknowledgements of ritual human sacrifice in the Bible, mentioned here or not.<br /><br />Like virtually everyone other article on evilbible.com, keep in mind that the author is arguing against something that is "unjust" in their own opinion. They are using opinions, and not even giving criteria, on what is considered unjust. Even more so, the commonly held atheist belief is that morality evolved as well along with civilization, so they cannot condemn these actions within their worldview, only express outrage! Here, however; I agree that ritual sacrifice of humans would be, in fact, unjust. Let's take a look and see how their examples stack up:<br /><br /><em>1) Isaac being offered (Genesis 22: 1-18):</em> This, as is said in the verse, was a test of Abraham's faith. First of all, let's get some inaccuracies out of the way. Abraham never lied to Isaac, the ram was provided. Also, Abraham never put a knife to Isaac's throat. Verse 10 says "and took the knife to slay his son." When information not in the text is added, the meaning of scripture gets clouded. Now, moving on to the explanation. In early history every civilization had a god of some sort, and human sacrifice was extremely common. Abraham, having come from the pagan city of Ai, would not have thought this out of place. God used this to show that He was different from other gods; He does not accept human sacrifice. This also showed the trust that Abraham had for God, and rightly so. There is also a sort of logic to this from Abraham's perspective; God had promised "In Isaac your seed shall be called". This would show Abraham that even if he did have to sacrifice Isaac, he seed would continue. The only explanation would be God raising him from the dead, so either way he knew his son would live<br /><br /><em>2) Consecrations of children (Exodus 13:2):</em> these talks about God's command to consecrate every man and beast out of the womb to God, for they are His. EB's commentary reads as follows: "It is clear from the context that consecrate means a burning sacrifice." WHAT!!?? The Hebrew word written here is qadash, meaning "sanctified, prepared, and dedicated". There is no burning involved. If they wanted to mean destroy or burn, the word chadam would have been used.<br /><br /><em>3) No redemption (Leviticus 27: 28-29):</em> It is common for atheists to pull bits and pieces of different verses together in order to show a point, which is happening here. This was actually part of #2, so keep that in mind. EB says that this verse shows that those firstborns have no chance of redemption because they are being referred to as "doomed". Since ritual human sacrifice wasn't even a part of the Leviticus Law, those first born couldn't have been referred to. They weren't even sacrificed in the first place, look back at #2.<br /><br /><em>4) Jepthah Burns His Daughter (Judges 11: 29-40):</em> Now, first of all, note that the NLT is used here. Mariano looked at 20 different translations and found not a single other that said she died, and the Hebrew (and Greek) doesn’t say that, either. Another funny thing worth noting about the NLT is when it says "I will give to the Lord the first thing that greets me when I return home in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering", it omits a very important word that appears in 18 other translations. That word is "and" (or in Robert Young's Literal Translation, "or"), and this completely changes the meaning of the verse. To offer a virgin to the Lord in the OT was to serve in the sanctuary as a nun, who was not to marry, hence, dying a virgin. This also draws a distinction between an animal and person, if a clean animal was to greet him, it would have been sacrificed, a person was to be consecrated (remember this doesn't mean burned!).<br /><br /><em>5) God commands burning humans (Joshua 7:15):</em> Again EB makes a huge assumption. They see "burned with fire" and immediately think burnt offering. This is a verse talking about Capital Punishment, which has been a part of God's Law throughout the Old Testament. There is no sacrifice.<br /><br /><em>6) Josiah and human sacrifice (1 Kings 13:1-2 and 2 Kings 23:20-25):</em> This was not a case of human sacrifice, but merely another case of Capital Punishment. Manasseh, the previous king, had built High Places all over Israel where pagan gods were worshipped. Josiah, full of zeal, killed all of the false priests who were worshipping these false gods. The meaning of talking to the altar in 1 Kings was that Josiah was mocking the false power of the idols by burning the dead priests on the altars, and during that time there is no way that would have been tolerated by gods. Obviously, there was nothing truly there with power.<br /><br /><em>7) Human sacrifice (Wisdom 3:5-7):</em> The book Wisdom of Solomon is part of the Catholic Bible commonly known as 2nd Canon or Apocrypha. These books are treated by Jewish rabbis like we treat Bible commentaries, useful but not inspired by God. This stance is shared by Protestants. See more information here: <a href="http://www.lifeanddoctrinepurgatory.com/2005/11/apocryphageneral-commentsthe-books.html">www.lifeanddoctrinepurgatory.com/2005/11/apocryphageneral-commentsthe-books.html</a>. Furthermore, does it really need to be pointed out that this is a psalm, and therefore its language uses frequent literary devices such as metaphors? This is the case here.<br /><br /><em>8) Child sacrifice (Wisdom 14:21-23):</em> EvilBible here is quite correct about one thing; the passage does mention actual child sacrifice. EB even admits here that it was being condemned. The verse even says: "It was not enough for them to err in their knowledge of God, but they live in great strife due to ignorance." This was a case of people making massive errors by no fault of God's. That doesn't mean Scripture was by any means wrong. Also, this is also quoted from the apocrypha; see the link in #7 for an explanation of these books.<br /><br /><em>9) Humans are fuel for fire (Ezekiel 21:33-37):</em> This is the same deal and number 6, this is a metaphor. I'm sure you have heard the expression "on fire for Christ". This means that you are excited about sharing Him and learning more about Him. This is the case here; the context does not lend any credibility to the idea of humans literally burning. The fire is spreading because of the Christian's call to share His word throughout the world, not literally.<br /><br /><em>10) Burn Nonbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:13-19):</em> This was a messy time in Israel's history. The cycle of sin kept bringing the Israelites to turn away from God, and He would have a nation conquer them in order to get them to turn to Him again. They frequently had to attack and destroy nations that worshipped other gods and mocked the Lord in order to do His work and even to defend themselves. God put this law in place so that Israel would not continue to turn away from Him. EB assumes that it meant the town and its inhabitants, when in fact the inhabitants are mentioned earlier. The verse says "then you must pile all of the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the Lord." The inhabitants aren't mentioned. In fact, the NIV says this: "completely burn the town and its plunder as a burnt offering to the Lord". The inhabitants are not mentioned and were dealt with in an earlier verse. EB has assumed wrong.<br /><br />The conclusion, more unfounded assumptions show EvilBible's neglect for the context and true meaning of Scripture. The Bible does not contain ritual human sacrifice any more than it contains rape or murder. For another look check this out:<a href="http://www.atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheism-ritual-human-sacrifice-in-bible.html">www.atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheism-ritual-human-sacrifice-in-bible.html</a> Addendum: <a href="http://www.atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/addendum-to-atheism-ritual-human.html">www.atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/addendum-to-atheism-ritual-human.html</a>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-50187623694592209532009-10-19T18:31:00.018-04:002009-12-09T12:50:07.956-05:00Rape in the BibleAgain EB starts off an article with the claim that the Bible condones raping women. The writer presumes to think for its readers, entering in opinions about just how bad of a crime rape really is. It says "How anyone can get their moral guidance from a book that allows rape escapes me." Now, after butchering the English language, it again attacks the Bible using its own opinions, that the Bible condones rape, without looking at the actual text. Again it fails to realize that the Bible frequently tells stories of the Israelites' wrongful acts, but that by no means shows that the Bible is condoning what they are doing. Let's take at look at their so-called "examples":<br /><br /><em>1) Murder, rape, and pillage at <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Jabesh</span>-Gilead (Judges 21. 10-24)</em>: First off I would like to ask a simple question: Where was the rape? It never says it outright in the verse, and therefore requires some very large assumptions from E<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">vilBible</span> in order to make this work for them, which they do without a thought. EB uses this syllogism: "The virgin's relatives were killed. The men who killed them took the virgins in. They got married, so it must have been equivalent to rape (notice EB also assumes the marriage was forced)" Syllogisms do not contain perfect logic, for example "fish can swim. I can swim. I must be a fish." Therefore, there is no reason to believe that this actually contained rape, let alone <em>repeatedly</em>. There were even regulations for how to deal with said regulation. Give them a peace offer (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Deut</span> 20.10-14). This verse even goes on to show how war captives were to be treated, as follows:<br /><ol><li>Provide them with housing (taking them in)</li><li>Allowing them 1 month to mourn. </li><li>Then allow marriage </li><li>If they divorce, no mistreatment.</li></ol><p>Where's the rape? You should know by now.</p><p><em>2) Murder, rape, and pillage of the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Midianites</span> (Numbers 31.7-18): </em>Almost the same thing as above. Again, they say "<em>Clearly</em> Moses <em>approves </em>of rape of virgins". Apparently EB sees the word virgin and immediately thinks rape. Rape, or even sex, is never mentioned in the entire verse. The process above still applies, as well.</p><p>3) <em>More murder, rape, and pillage (Deuteronomy 20.10-14): </em>Let's make a little checklist, shall we?</p><ul><li><u>Murder</u>: This is war, and peace was rejected, God even commanded to offer peace.</li><br /><li><u>Rape</u>: Still only says as much as the above two, rape's been inserted by EB.</li><br /><li><u>Slavery</u>: The word that here was translated as forced slavery can also be translated to simply mean work, which here could easily be a form of indentured servitude. Also, I already talked about how slavery in the Bible's time, not the same as America's early history: <a href="http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery-in-bible.html">http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery-in-bible.html</a> </li></ul><p><em>4) Laws of rape (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Deut</span> 22.28-29): </em>Here Mariano was a great resource by providing the etymology of the verse. The word used here, translated as rape, is the Hebrew word <em><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">shakab</span>, </em>meaning lying down. <em>T<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">aphas</span></em> is the Hebrew word for catching, handling, taking hold, and isn't used. If you look at most other translations it merely says "a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he lays hold of her and lies with her." Where in the verse does it say the intercourse was forced? The verse even ends with "and they were found". It doesn't say he was caught, THEY were caught. This shows that they were engaging in fornication, not rape. This made them have to get married because the woman was not even previously betrothed.</p><p><em>5) Death to the rape victim (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Deut</span>. 22. 23-24): </em>Here it is interesting to note than EB has been citing the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">NLT</span>, and now switches to the NAB for the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">remainder</span> of the article. The <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">NLT's</span> verse is even farther away from citing rape, while the NAB is closer, and therefore suits <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">EB's</span> purpose, deliberate misinterpretation, better. The <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">NLT</span> says "suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin engaged to a man, and has sexual intercourse with her..." Again, no rape. This is fornication, and both are punished for it. They cannot get married like #4 because she is already engaged, so they must be punished, and God has rules set for that. Also, there is a part EB conveniently left out in the very next verse. It says "But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, than only the man must die." Sound like condoning rape to you? </p><p>Also, for those who would point out the "but" to mean it meant it in the first part as well, literal translations of the first one say "but she did not cry out", and in the countryside crying out is far less likely to help at all. This shows that the woman was in fact raped, while if she didn't cry out people would know it wasn't rape.</p><p><em>6) David's punishment- Polygamy, rape, baby killing, and God's "forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12. 11-14): </em>To start God is punishing David for polygamy and adultery, so condoning that is out of the question. Deuteronomy 17:15, 17 says: "You shall set a king over you...He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray." Let's try another checklist:</p><ul><li><u>Rape</u>: Absent. Lying with the neighbor is his wives committing adultery, no rape.</li><br /><li><u>Polygamy</u>: Present. God punished David for it.</li><br /><li><u>Baby Killing</u>: Present. God judged David because David had made followers of God look like hypocrites for <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">committing</span> adultery with Bathsheba. Capital punishment, explained here: <a href="http://www.debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/murder-in-bible.html">www.debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/murder-in-bible.html</a> </li><br /><li><u>Forgiveness</u>: Present. The punishment for adultery is death, but God forgave David. Funny thing is, for EB this should be a bad thing.</li></ul><p><em>7) Rape of female captives (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Deut</span> 21. 10-14): </em>This was cited earlier in order to show that there wasn't rape, see the process at the end of #1. The process showed that they must be married in order to have sexual relations. None of this was forced, including the marriage. There's not rape, once again EB inserts a very disturbing misinterpretation.</p><p><em>8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5. 30): </em>Again there is rape inserted by <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">EB's</span> author. None actually in the verse. A girl for each man means as a slave, not a sex slave. Furthermore, this was actually a lyrical poem sang by Deborah, not meant to be interpreted literally like has been by EB.</p><p><em>9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21. 7-11): </em>I have already dealt with this in my slavery post: <a href="http://www.debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery-in-bible.html">www.debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery-in-bible.html</a>. A quick refresher, this never says sex anywhere, nor implies it. These were laws handling the treatment of female slaves, nothing more. It even states that a man may marry her to one of his sons. This must occur for any sex; otherwise it would be fornication, which the Bible is patently against. Women were sold into slavery by their families or willingly went in order to pay off debts that they owed, which was more like indentured slavery, a term that didn't exist at the time. Apparently EB sees "woman" and "slave" and immediately thinks "sex slave".</p><p><em>10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 12:1-2): </em>Again EB takes a verse out of context, and those who use <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">biblegateway</span>.com or another such site in reference to this (Good idea, by the way), pull up just one more verse after this. It reads: "Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against these nations". Another translation of verse one "Behold, the day of the Lord <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">cometh</span>." This verse has Israel being defeated for turning away from God, and then God will come to redeem them. The rape <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">described</span> here is the disgusting acts of other nations, and God punishes them for it when he redeems Israel. Hardly condoning rape.</p><p><em>Conclusion: </em>Thus ends <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span>.<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">com's</span> unfounded rant about the Bible condoning rape. It should be known by now that it clearly doesn't, in fact just the opposite. There is a clear difference between it being in the Bible, and the Bible condoning it. Also, massive assumptions aren't acceptable as evidence. It doesn't explicitly say rape in 90% of these verses, that part is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">inserted</span>. It helps to understand the slavery side of this as well, so check it out. My link was posted in one of the answers above. Thanks!</p>My friend Mariano also has a thing or two to say about this, in a more detailed way than I: <a href="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-evilbiblecom-and-dan.html">http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-evilbiblecom-and-dan.html</a><br />and for another perspective:<br /><a href="http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99778.qna/category/ot/page/questions/site/">http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99778.qna/category/ot/page/questions/site/</a><br />About fornication:<br /><a href="http://www.bible.ca/s-premarital-sex.htm">http://www.bible.ca/s-premarital-sex.htm</a>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com101tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-78656789045330399722009-10-06T18:45:00.011-04:002009-12-09T12:50:22.753-05:00Murder in the BibleOne of the articles <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">evilbible</span> seems most proud of is the occurrence of "murder" in the Bible. First of all, a definition of murder is absent, so we must come up with one. No doubt the definition they intend to use will be "the unlawful killing of man". They also don't define absurd in this situation. But would it truly be absurd? Every man, women, and child bears the sin and guilt of Adam's sin because of the Great Fall, so the death penalty is exacted. EB is readily willing to enact it's own judgement of the laws of the culture, and this judgement is purely emotionally driven. The entire article is designed to play off of the human emotions associated with murder, but when we look past these it lacks substance. The laws of an ancient culture cannot be subject to our scrutiny, we have no personal knowledge of acts within the culture.<br /><br />Now to move on, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">evilbible</span>.com says that God continuously commits unfair killing, including genocide and killings making no sense at all. They have divided these verses into 4 parts:<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" class="Apple-style-span">1, Capital Punishment</span><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span> is very quick to judge here, and EB is attempting to use its own opinions as an argument. Most everyone even today has an opinion regarding capital punishment, and some culture have it within their law system. Apparently EB is against capital punishment, but there is no room in trying to disprove the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">inerrancy</span> of the Bible for anachronistic judgement of another, completely difference, civilization's laws. Capital Punishment was the law at that time, and was understood by Israel, and all <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">EB's</span> examples are merely people disobeying the Law with the knowledge the capital punishment was in place. It is also worth mentioning that we must not look at the crimes at face value. Some of them, such as working on the Sabbath, seem like very minute offenses, but many times it is what the represent that shows the offense. The Sabbath was a representation of what God did for the Israelites throughout history, including Creation, and to desecrate it by working for personal gain is to put oneself above God, which is ultimately idolatry, in this case worshipping money or oneself.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" class="Apple-style-span">2, Stupid Reasons</span><br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Kill Brats<span style="FONT-STYLE: normal" class="Apple-style-span">:</span> </span><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span> neglected to show what "Go up <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">baldhead</span>" meant, or else didn't bother to find out. Before this Elijah had gone up on the mountain and ascended, which of course made others think him dead. This band of teenagers are in effect saying "Go up and die like Elijah did". God punished them for wishing death upon one of His messengers. <span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse;font-family:'Times New Roman';" class="Apple-style-span" >(2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)</span><br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">God Kills the Curious: </span>The treatment and transport of the Ark of the Covenant was a topic covered thoroughly within the Law, and these were men who broke it even with the knowledge of the consequences. Ignorance of the Law doesn't mean you are excluded from it, does it? This blasphemous act was also done immediately following worship, showing some hypocrisy within the city. The other citizens must have understood this as well, otherwise they most likely would not have proclaimed God's holiness following His judgement. <span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse;font-family:'Times New Roman';" class="Apple-style-span" >(1Samuel 6:19-20 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">ASV</span>)</span><br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Killed by a Lion</span>: This was a punishment for questioning the Word of God. The commanded man knew that the commander was a prophet, and should have known there would be a good reason for obeying God. Actually, right after the occurrence another man in their company was commanded to do the same thing, and he followed through. After this the prophet was able to disguise himself because of his wound and pursue God's Will, so God had a purpose for this act. (1 Kings 20:35-36)<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Killing the Good Samaritan: </span>Again, within the Law the transport of the Ark of the Covenant had specific instructions. The instructions are very clear, and in no part of it are oxen involved. Men were to carry it on poles, but in this case the reverence for God's Covenant were clearly lost. It was being carried precariously on an ox cart, by oxen, with a few men guiding it instead of the appropriate arrangements. God was simply punishing the men for ignorance of His Law, He couldn't have been clearer. (2 Samuel 6:3-7)<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" class="Apple-style-span">3, Murdering Children</span><br /><br />Every single one of these examples is a prophecy of Israel's slavery to Babylon later on. The Israelites had been disobeying, blaspheming, and ignoring God for 100's of years, and this was Him setting his children right again. It was the same with with how Canaan and other civilizations were attacked by the Israelites under Joshua, and later on in the Bible. God had given them 100's of years so that they would have a chance to set things right, such as the time before the global flood, but ultimately the cycle of sin continued.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">God Kills the Firstborn of Egypt: </span>Did EB by chance miss the 400 years of brutal slavery and not allowing Israel to even worship their God? There were 9 plagues in front of this in which Pharaoh had a chance to let the Israelites go and worship. Also, God had directed these plagues towards showing the powerlessness of the Egyptian gods. I addressed all of these in the post of "Top Ten signs you're a Christian fundamentalist". This one was directed at 3 gods, one of which being Pharaoh who was considered a god.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">God Will Kill the Children of Sinners: </span>This is a warning, not a prediction. This was designed to get the Israelites attention so that they don't turn away from God's commands. Like I've said before, turning away from God's commands is ultimately putting yourself above God in your mind, the sin the caused the Fall of Lucifer. All good parents have a great love for their children, so it astounds me that Israel would still turn away when their children are mentioned.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" class="Apple-style-span">4, Misc. Murders</span><br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Sampson's Murders: </span>If you were to read this book, you could easily see that Israel and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Philistia</span> were at war. It's not a murder if you are defending your country, not absurd at all.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Peter Kills Two People: </span>This was the very first sin in the new Church. God was showing people how seriously he takes sin by killing Ananias and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Saphira</span>. They had given what they said was all they had when it wasn't. They were lying in order to obtain a good reputation in the church. It is also worth noting that, assuming they were true believers, they still ended up with their Heavenly Father. Not a bad deal.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Mass Murder: </span>This was a command to destroy Canaan, which had been one of Israel's enemies for a long time. They had been given lots of time by God to repent of their many sins and come back, but they didn't, that's all there is to it. They were told to kill all women in children so that the civilization would not end up rising again and threatening God's people once more.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">You have to kill: </span>This chapter was God's commands concerning the nation of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moab</span>, another civilization given plenty of time to repent but did not. This verse was saying woe to he who disobeys God by keeping his hand from bloodshed because He had commanded the attack of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moab</span>, not random killing like EB makes it out to be.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">The <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">Danites</span> kill the next town: </span>EB needs to try a different translation here. God had given the tribe a Dan a certain allotment of land, and currently there were civilizations who were occupying it and refused to move, so they simply claimed what God had given them as part of the promised land.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">God kills some more: </span>This was a righteous punishment of Israel by God. Manasseh was a ruler who rebuilt many places of idol worship that his father had destroyed. He ruled as an evil ruler who sacrificed his own children to false gods and ignored warnings from god. He continually sought the council of fortune tellers and mediums, and God sent the Assyrian army in order that Manasseh would come to his senses, which he did.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">God promises more killing: </span>This was a prophecy of the destruction of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">Edom</span>. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Edom</span> was the civilization founded by Jacob's brother Esau. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">Edom</span> had a great dislike of Israel because of Esau's great mistake, and therefore harassed Israel throughout history before their eventual destruction.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">The Angel of Death: </span>If Israel were to enter the promised land without any military help from God, they would have been wiped out. God was protecting His people while also keeping them from fraternizing with those who would cause them to again turn to worshipping false gods.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Destruction of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">Ai</span> and Jericho: </span>Everyone should know at this point that the promised land had been delivered to Israel by God, and that all of these cities that Israel destroyed in order to claim it had been participating in all manners of sins. I'll save the time of point them out again, just look up.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">God kills an extended family: </span>This starts off with a godly child dying of sickness so that God is able to punish the rest of the people for conforming to the worship of the calf the Jeroboam had set up. Pretty standard judgement for idolatry, not murder at all.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Mass Murder: </span>There was a clan within the tribe of Benjamin that God knew needed to be punished, but the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">Benjamites</span> weren't willing to accept it, so they were punished as well for disobeying the Word of God.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">The Angel of Death: </span>Israel and Assyria were at war during this time, and Israelites were dying of starvation because of the Assyrians siege. Apparently delivering one's own people from their sinful enemies is murder? I don't think so.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Kill your neighbors: </span>Those neighbors happened to be the Israelites who forsook God and made a golden calf and engaged in an orgy while Moses was getting the 10 commandments. Righteous judgement again.<br /><br /><em>Kill the Family of Sinners: </em><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">Achan</span> had put himself above God by refusing God's command to destroy all of Jericho and had taken some of the plunder for himself. A lengthy process of unearthing his crime followed, which at any point he could have come out into the open with it and acquired a much less severe consequence, but he didn't. Instead he ended up involving his family in the punishment as well. You cannot hide as much treasure as this man did without his family knowing about it and helping, which caused them to share in the punishment as well.<br /><br /><em>Kill Followers of Other Religions: </em>God punished the Israelites for worship of Baal once again. They continually gave up God for Baal, violating the very first commandment. Again we see that EB has neglected to mention that they had knowingly violated the Law, and even more so by previously sleeping with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moabite</span> women, another law! Ignorance of the Law never excuses disobedience. Furthermore, Baal worship frequently entailed things such as idol worship, another law, and human sacrifice, another law.<br /><br /><em>Murder: </em>They killed the prophets of Baal here, who were advocating all the law breaking mentioned just above. Capital punishment, not wrongful human killing.<br /><br /><em>Kill All of Babylon: </em>Again, apparently EB objects to war? Babylon was following more religions going directly against the laws God had set in place. They also did enslaved to Israelites for 3 generations and treated them harshly. More punishment, not murder.<br /><br /><em>Micah Kills a Whole Town: </em>For one thing, the Lord said the journey to find a place to settle had his approval, but the violent actions that happened later on. Furthermore, Micah and his men overtook and killed the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">Danites</span> because they had stolen from his household. This, again, was violation God's law.<br /><br /><strong>Closing Comments:</strong><br />None of these examples was able to stand up to elementary examination. When you look at it, you can see that every single one of these could have fallen under the Capital Punishment category. EB is judging the nation of Israel's Law, something they have no right to do. Arguing based on your own opinions when talking about an issue of this magnitude is unacceptable to most skeptics. God enacted the Law for Israel which was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and you cannot accurately judge something put in place by a Supreme Being based on our limited human knowledge. EB has failed to show any wrongful killing of humans. For another perspective, check out <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">Rhoblogy's</span> page:<br /><a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/04/evilbiblecom-project-part-1-murder-in.html">http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/04/evilbiblecom-project-part-1-murder-in.html</a>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-74387917861732614562009-10-01T13:24:00.011-04:002009-12-09T12:50:35.252-05:00Slavery in the BibleIn the Bible slavery is mentioned many times. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span>.com claims that these mentions are the Bible condoning slavery, such as Leviticus 25:44-46 where God allows the Israelites to purchase slaves from foreign countries. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span> portrays slavery as "one of the most evil things a person can do, save murder."<br /><br />While this is true in the modern world, the argument that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span> makes comes from the fact that it is comparing what we think of slavery now, namely kidnapping Africans and selling them to do virtually free labor, to what slavery meant in <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">cultural</span> times. Slavery in the cultural context was not based on racism, cheap labor, or sex.<br /><br />There's another big issue with a two words that begin every single one of these statement. Those words are "when" and "if", primarily "if". The Bible says IF x happens, you should do y. It never says Since I commanded you to do x, you should also do y. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span> is inserting words that are not in the text, and therefore changing the meaning into instructions on slavery into God condoning slavery, and it clearly doesn't say that. It's the same idea with the word "when". God knows it's going to happen, so he says uses when. It still never says anything about God commanding slavery, or encouraging slavery, etc.<br /><br />They cite Exodus 21:2-6 which talks about men choosing to sell their daughters into slavery and how that daughter is to be treated while she is in bondage. What this means within the culture is a man selling his daughter as a BRIDE. She is to be treated as such, whether bought or not, which is what the point of the scripture is.<br /><br />Also <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">evilbible</span> mentions Exodus 21: 20-21 talking about beating slaves. It says that if a slave lives more than 24 hours after a beating, and then dies, there is no punishment, but if it dies immediately you are to be punished. This verse seems to condone beating at first, but in the time period masters were not to be cruel like we here about in our nation's early history, but beatings were only given when the slave committed a crime.<br /><br />Lastly, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">evilbible</span> uses a parable of Jesus in Luke 12:47-48 to try to say that Jesus supported slavery. Again, in ancient culture slavery was an accepted practice, and much different than we know it today. He was acknowledging it and giving guidelines for how a master should act. Also, earlier in the verse it talked about the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">servant</span> being beaten in these verses, that the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">servant</span> knew his master would be awhile longer, and so he got drunk and beat the other slaves. Strengthening the point above, slaves were beaten only for CRIMES.<br /><br />The last thing I would like to point out is the slavery we typically think of now is based on race, but the Bible clearly <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">condemns</span> this. The process of "man-stealing" is how people acquired slaves from Africa in America's early history, and that practices is condemned in the Bible. Exodus 13 says that the reason the Hebrews were enslaved was because they were Hebrews, and the following 10 Plagues should show how God feels about racial slavery. Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." Sounds like condoning slavery to you?<br /><br />Sources: <a href="http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4896">www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4896</a><br /><a href="http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html">www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html</a><br /><a href="http://www.allaboutworldview.org/slavery-in-the-bible.htm">www.allaboutworldview.org/slavery-in-the-bible.htm</a><br /><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp">www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</a>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com50tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-63774051054995703252009-09-28T12:58:00.013-04:002009-12-09T12:50:46.750-05:00Synthetic Life<p><em>"A common argument used by theists to support their belief in God, is that life is so complicated it can only have been made by God. Often this is accompanied with the assertion that there is a "vital force" that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">separates</span> living things from non-living things, and that God is the source of this "vital force"</em><br /></p><p>This article starts off with a HUGE claim, the claim that scientists have created life. The funny thing is, however; that right afterwards they spend some time making the argument that a virus is considered a life form. Even today this is still debated, so it's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">debatable</span> whether or not, assuming they did in fact create a virus, it's considered a life form. Some arguments for why it couldn't be a life form:</p><ul><li>They do not grow</li><br /><li>They do not respond to stimuli</li><br /><li>They do not consume anything for energy</li><br /><li>They are not made up of cells</li><br /><li>They are not a member of any kingdom</li><br /><li>They do not have a metabolism</li><br /><li>They cannot replicated their genetic information without a host</li></ul><p>(Found on <a href="http://www.wikianswers.com/">http://www.wikianswers.com/</a> and <a href="http://www.beyondbooks.com/lif72/2c.asp">www.beyondbooks.com/lif72/2c.asp</a>)<br /></p><p>Another thing that is somewhat ironic about this, is that they believe by creating it they have show evidence for evolution. To cite <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Rhoblogy</span>:</p><p><em><strong>intelligent </strong>agents working in a controlled (by <strong>intelligent </strong>agents) lab that was designed by <strong>intelligent </strong>agents and constructed by <strong>intelligent</strong> agents <strong>intelligently </strong>applied this and that chemical and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">environmental</span> factor, <strong>intelligent learned from </strong>previous failures and <strong>intelligently </strong>tweaked this or that. The result? And <strong>intelligently-designed </strong>virus!</em><br /></p><p>Interesting...</p><p>Now, there's one more point I'd like to make. There have been people who have created amino acids and organic compounds from inorganic substances, but there is a major issue. There is absolutely no reason to believe our atmosphere ever contained no oxygen, and when oxygen is present organic compounds cannot be formed. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment used what they thought was the atmosphere of early earth, but just took away oxygen in order to produce organic compounds. They even knew that there is no evidence for the earth having no oxygen originally, but believed we must simply not know how yet because evolution has already been proven correct. (Icons of Evolution)</p><p><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Rhoblogy's</span> take: <a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/04/evilbiblecom-project-part-3-synthetic.html">http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/04/evilbiblecom-project-part-3-synthetic.html</a> </p>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-81464909278300238732009-09-21T13:15:00.016-04:002010-06-18T14:48:09.950-04:00Top 10 Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span>.com posted a top ten list of the ways to tell whether or not you are a fundamentalist Christian. Let's take a look:<br /><br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"><span style="color:#009900;">10: You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.</span><br /></span><br />I don't feel outraged when someone denies the existence of God; it just makes me a little sad for them. I try to make people understand, not use the naive approach described here. That's the purpose of apologetics, to give reasons for our faith.<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">9: You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that we evolved from other life forms, but have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.</span><br /><br />I don't feel dehumanized with the Bible because it talks about how much God loves us and that he cares for us enough to send His Son to die for us, how could that dehumanize you?<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">8: You laugh at polytheists, but believe in a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Triune</span> God.<br /></span><br />Shows what they know about the meaning of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Triune</span>. Also, I don't laugh at polytheists, I don't laugh at any other religion.<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">7: Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about when God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in the "Exodus" and ordered the extermination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including men, women, and trees!</span><br /><br />For one, he killed firstborns, not all the babies, more research issues. Here's a link explaining these instances: </span><a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">. I do have issues with atrocities attributed to Allah, and I also realize humanity has made mistakes in the name of God, but is by no means a reason to say Christianity is wrong, it means people mess up.<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">6: You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.<br /></span><br />The Holy Spirit did not have sexual relations with Mary likes it's implied here, God implanted a fetus. Again, I do not laugh at Hindus, somebody has a very ugly belief of who Christians are. The rest makes sense if you know the Bible, he was killed as a perfect sacrifice because he did not sin, and was willing to do this. He came back to life by conquering death, and ultimately sin. And he ascended because he had beaten death, he need not die again.<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">5: You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old. </span><br /><br />They weren't Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents, they were witnesses to God's glory, and were <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">definitely</span> NOT guessing. I haven't spent my life doing this, but it'd be a good way to spend it. Atheists call evolution a fact, and if that were the case there would be no "loopholes". There are way too many for it to be a fact.<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">4: You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."<br /></span><br />For one I'm non-denominational, so I don't believe all rival sects will go to Hell. It's the most tolerant and loving because our God is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">infinitely</span> Holy, and cannot be in the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">presence</span> of imperfect beings. Jesus gave us the opportunity to become perfect, and if you don't accept it there's nothing more to be done. It's not our fault of how it is, and almost all other religions have the basic idea of a Hell as well.<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">3: While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.</span><br /><br />Very few people use speaking in tongues as proof for Christianity, first of all. Modern science does not contradict the Bible. The Bible deals with a God outside of time, matter, and space (aka Supernatural). Science deals with the observed natural. Science's boundaries are outside of the Bible. Furthermore, history affirms the events that happened in the Bible.<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">2: You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.</span><br /><br />For one the success rate is hardly that low, it doesn't always occur immediately. Also, God always has the final say, if you had a 2 year old child asking for a gun you wouldn't give it to him. We have extremely limited knowledge compared to the Almighty. Remember James 4:3 as well "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures".<br /><br /><span style="color:#009900;">1: "You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian."<br /></span><br />For one this hardly has to do with Fundamentalism, but I'll play along. I find it personally sad that there are agnostics and atheists that have more knowledge than Christians do, and it really shouldn't be that way, but I don't believe that's the case with me and the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">evilbible</span>.com staff.<br /><br />A friend's view: </span><a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/05/evilbiblecom-project-part-2-top-ten.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/05/evilbiblecom-project-part-2-top-ten.html</span></a> <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">And: h</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 20px" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)" class="Apple-style-span"><a style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/09/top-ten-signs-you-are-christian-fundy.html" rel="nofollow"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">ttp://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/09/top-ten-signs-you-are-christian-fundy.html</span></a></span></span></div>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-65829958836923904802009-09-15T12:54:00.006-04:002009-11-02T20:03:12.754-05:00Jesus Never LiedAnother article on evilbible.com is a somewhat short one saying that Jesus lied about the power of prayer. It says if you look at these verses without adding anything to them, then they are blatant lies out of the mouth of Jesus. Unfortunately what those who read this usually don't realize, is that the thing they don't want added is the historical context, the "key" to understanding the meaning of the verse. The following are their examples:<br /><br />1) Matthew 21:21-22. Taken out of context, of course it will sounds like a lie. In the cultural context moving a mountain is a common metaphor for doing something that is seemingly impossible, not literally moving one. Also, we submit our faith in prayer to God, so it is always He who has the final say. <a href="http://www.crivoice.org/commanding.html">http://www.crivoice.org/commanding.html</a> has a full article on this.<br /><br />2) Matthew 7:7-8. Same idea<br /><br />3) Matthew 18: 19-20. Same basic idea again, but slightly different. Of course it doesn't mean Jesus is literally with them, it's through Jesus we have the ability to come together and pray.<br /><br />4) Mark 11:24-25. Exact same words as #1<br /><br />5) Luke 11:9-13. Exact same words as #2<br /><br />6) John 14:13-14. Same idea<br /><br />7) John 15:7. Same idea<br /><br />8) John 15:16. Same idea<br /><br />9) John 16: 23-24. Same idea<br /><br />Every single one of these is Jesus saying the EXACT, SAME, THING! This is actually one big example, shows a little about research again, doesn't it? I posted a link to a site which explains Jesus words in full, without unfairly adding to them.<br />Also, a great link from a friend more experienced in this than I am: <a href="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-evilbiblecom-and-jesus-lied.html">http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-evilbiblecom-and-jesus-lied.html</a>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-60673184503797622732009-09-14T19:16:00.003-04:002009-11-02T20:01:40.521-05:00"God Is Impossible"--The Conclusion of the MatterThus ends Chad Docterman's argument for God's impossibility. He says no rational and free-thinking individual could deny it. I think you, the reader, are a perfectly rational person that should now be able to see the many holes in Mr. Docterman's argument. If you do some serious research, you find out things Mr. Docterman didn't want to.<br /><br />Of course, he has to end the article with a direct insult at the Christian community. He ends with saying that he chooses reality, when in fact he chooses a life without any obligation to any being greater than he is, and ultimately chooses death over life. As for my house and millions worldwide, we choose to serve the One And Only Yahweh, who was, is, and is to come, and is the only one who can redeem the entire human race from their sins. If you can believe in him, repent of your sins, and dedicate your life to Him you can experience the infinite joy those millions have, and live forever with God Almighty.<br /><br />"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-80847552019336045622009-09-11T17:36:00.003-04:002009-11-02T19:58:13.766-05:00"God Is Impossible" Part 14--The Omniscient is SuprisedEvilbible.com says here that the omniscient Christian God has emotions such as anger and frustration that we only feel when there is something we cannot change. He also is suprised by new information, and there should be none if God is truly omniscient.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.christianteenforums.com/God-emotionst62950.html">www.christianteenforums.com/God-emotionst62950.html</a> has a small article about this. God had emotions and we experience them because we are made in His image. God's emotions, however; are different from ours in the sense that they are perfect, and do not need the same stimuli we do to provoke them. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways are not your ways, says the Lord" Isaiah 55:8. Even when anger is mentioned, it is always right behind the word righteous when referring to God.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-65164813983973607932009-09-10T22:23:00.003-04:002009-11-02T19:56:43.048-05:00"God Is Impossible" Part 13--The Omniscient Changes The FutureEvilbible.com's entire argument here is two sentences: A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient, all-powerful, free-willed God is impossible.<br /><br />How exactly does this make sense? <strong>Omniscient</strong> knows He knows all, that means He can see every possible outcome of a given situation based on his interference, so he can make a <strong>free-willed </strong>decision on what he'd like best, and the limits on what he can do with it are non-existent because of his <strong>omnipotence</strong>. Again Mr. Docterman's claims are unfounded.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-29277731228684008952009-09-10T13:03:00.003-04:002009-11-02T19:56:05.819-05:00"God Is Impossible" Part 12--Unfulfilled prophecyEvilbible now states that there are prophecies in the Bible that haven't been fulfilled. This is a unfounded claim simply because many refer to end times, which obviously are still yet to come.<br /><br />The only example they give is saying Isaiah 7's prophecy is not fulfilled in Matthew 1 like the author portrayed it. They say Jesus was never called Immanuel during his lifetime, and the two kingdoms it refers to don't make sense, so they couldn't be referring to Jesus.<br /><br />Actually, Isaiah himself had a second son named Maher-shalal-Hashbaz. He came by a prophetess who Isaiah had married, but at the time he gave this prophecy to Ahaz she was unmarried and a virgin. The two kingdoms refer to Israel and Syria, two countries near Judah that Ahaz was afraid of. Part of the prophecy said that at the time his son could tell good from evil they would have new rulers, and that came true. Hence, they called the child Immanuel (God Is With Us).<br /><br />This appears to merely show that it referred to Isaiah's son and not Jesus, but look up Isaiah 8:18. He states that his children are signs and wonders of the Lord almighty, so Maher-shalal-Hashbaz was a sign of Jesus yet to come in the same fashion!<br /><br />Also, there is a youtube video that talks about the many prophecies that have been fulfilled throughout history. Check it out: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gL7w2coR3g">www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gL7w2coR3g</a>.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-10422187411207396232009-09-09T12:56:00.004-04:002009-11-02T19:52:04.475-05:00"God Is Impossible" Part 11--Contradictory HistoryThis section of the article "God Is Impossible" makes the claim that the Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. They make general claims to hundreds of instances, none of which I've previously come across.<br /><br />The only example they give is saying that the Bible doesn't say whether Timnah was a concubine or a son. Timna is mentioned as a son and a concubine, but that is because Timna is the concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz. Genesis 36 talks about her and even gives her full clan information.<br /><br />Also, Esau's wives seem to have a contradiction between Genesis 26-28 and 36, but this is due to a word issue. It would take a long time to explain so go to <a href="http://www.rae.org/esauswives.html">http://www.rae.org/esauswives.html</a><br /><br />The last example they gave was that it contradicts itself whether Jesus lineage is through Solomon or Nathan. It's actually Solomon, it seems to go both ways because Matthew traces it back through Mary and Luke traces it back through Joseph. Again, evilbible.com fails to show evidence of having done research. Joseph's lineage is through Nathan, but remember Joseph was not Jesus's biological father. Mary's line goes through David.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-47939700744764558012009-09-07T15:06:00.002-04:002009-09-07T15:27:50.830-04:00"God Is Impossible" Part 10--Contradictory JusticeThis and the next are probably the hardest ones to debunk thoroughly because they make very vague accusations. They say that God's justice changes throughout the Bible without any examples but 2, both of which are easy to answer.<div><br /></div><div>First of all, they mention David's punishment for taking a census. 1 Chronicles 1:17 actually tells us the "He" is SATAN, not God. This is easily found with a more literal reading in the original text. Also, a census is generally to take account of something you own, and Israel was by no means David's, at that point it was a theocracy.</div><div><br /></div><div>The only other one they mentioned was Jesus fixing God's imperfect creation. I've already shown creation was perfect until we messed it up, so that point has already been answered.</div><div><br /></div><div>God has an unchangeable nature, so his sense of Justice never has and never will contradict itself. There are websites answering Bible "contradictions" people struggle with. Try:</div><div>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html, comereason.org, or apologeticsindex.org/b08aa.html</div>Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-52381532010664533902009-09-03T20:31:00.003-04:002009-11-02T19:44:28.679-05:00"God Is Impossible" Part 9--Perfection's Imperfect RevelationThis part is one of the least researched parts I've encountered, the thought that Mr. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Docterman</span> has put into it is extremely small. He says that if God was truly all-knowing He would have just put the knowledge of Him into our own brains himself instead of composing an "indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man," to use its own words.<br /><br />For one thing, it figures that it would call the Bible an indecipherable amalgam. The thing is, we all bring our own predetermined beliefs to it whenever we read the Bible, which leads to some wrongful interpretations. The Bible was written more than 1000 years ago, so it just makes sense for you to have to look back at the phrases and symbols that would have made perfect sense to people then. The historical context is of utmost importance when you are studying scripture, a point with Chad <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Docterman</span> obviously overlooked.<br /><br />While it is true that it takes more than one lifetime to fully understand the entire Bible, understanding every bit of it isn't necessary. I cringe a little at using the word necessary because every Christian should attempt to spend time in the Word every day, but what I'm saying is that the reason God hasn't revealed His nature to us individually and completely is because He wants to see people seeking after Him, and one of the ways Christians do that is through reading the Bible to find out more about their faith. Not every sentence in necessary to salvation, but it does give more insight into the true nature of our Heavenly Father.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-52963465137500180542009-09-03T20:25:00.004-04:002009-11-02T19:42:43.763-05:00"God Is Impossible" Part 8--Belief More Important than ActionThis is one every Christian should feel strongly about. The Bible says that anyone who hasn't accepted Jesus into their hearts will go to Hell, and it's true. We are all sinners and actions, no matter how good, can't atone for what we've done. There are people in remote parts of the world who may never hear the Gospel, but that's what the Great Commission is for: "Go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS." Christians are charged to go out and spread the Word of Jesus to everyone who hasn't heard it and try to make them understand why they need forgiveness.<br /><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Evilbible</span>.com says that this means God is judging people on their beliefs rather than their actions. The fact is, if you've truly accepted Christ as your savior that IS an action. Satan BELIEVES in God, but that doesn't mean he's going to heaven does it? Also, if you are truly a Christian that should bring about a radical enough transformation that actions go along with it, without actions you are not a true believer. This doesn't work both ways though, just because you do actions doesn't mean you are a believer.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312450082228711308.post-56759769378049852742009-09-02T22:14:00.000-04:002009-09-02T22:22:50.832-04:00"God Is Impossible" Part 7--Infinite Punishment for Finite SinsThis is probably one of the weakest arguments evilbible.com makes regarding God's existence. It is an extremely obvious misconception and shows how little research the article writer actually did before they wrote.<br /><br />They say God cannot exist because He is perfectly just (again limiting with the word perfect) and yet he punishes people eternally for finite sins that happened during their mortal lifespan. Furthermore, God couldn't be fairly punishing them because he created them imperfectly.<br /><br />Quite a few obvious issues, see them? For one, Hell is a place without God's presence which is why it causes such suffering. God's presence is always around us here on earth, and is able to be around sinful creation because of the possiblility of redemption. When you die there is no more possibility for redemption, so you must go to a place without God's presence because an entity that is perfectly holy cannot be in the presence of imperfection. If you simply accept Jesus your sins become covered and you acquire ultimate and eternal joy through Jesus Christ. Not too mention I've already shown He didn't create us imperfectly.Connor Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04214224506725879934noreply@blogger.com2