Say What? The Bible's Oddest Verses

[Legion]

... one has to KEEP reading!

 

You mean like the way you kept reading Ecclesiastes? Like the way you snipped verses out of context there?

 

It's essentially a secular treatise smack-dab in the middle of the Bible. And yet you find it supportive of your beliefs.

 

 

Why don't you try reading the whole damn thing. Then look at the world around you. Then see if any of it makes sense.

[Thumbelina]

... one has to KEEP reading!

 

You mean like the way you kept reading Ecclesiastes? Like the way you snipped verses out of context there?

 

It's essentially a secular treatise smack-dab in the middle of the Bible. And yet you find it supportive of your beliefs.

 

 

Why don't you try reading the whole damn thing. Then look at the world around you. Then see if any of it makes sense.

 

The texts I cited from Ecclesiastes matches the rest of scripture.

 

Why don't you try reading the whole inspired thing? Did you read what the conclusion of the matter was? Solomon realized it after his escapades. It gives me hope for[edit] Ex Christians y'know.

[bornagainathiest]

Eg. at first glance one would think God was commanding a lot of the heinous acts in the book of Judges but one has to KEEP reading! It was summed up at the end by stating that the people were doing what was right in their OWN eyes.

 

Keep reading?

 

Most of the human race throughout most of history has illiterate. What chance have these unlettered billions ever had of knowing God's word? Unlike you - no access to Bibles, Bible commentaries, on-line Interlinears, libraries, nothing!

Zip!

 

You've just declared Christianity to be a mystery cult, Thumbelina.

One that's closed to anyone who doesn't have exactly your oh-so-learned understanding of scripture. We've all got the wrong idea about God. remember? So, how can the Holy Spirit guide the illiterate into the truth of the Bible? Assuming that there's a Bible around when it's needed. Where were the Bibles in Africa, Asia and the Americas before the missionaries arrived?

 

You've done worse than what Jesus said the Pharisees did.

They barred the people of Israel from entering heaven and then didn't enter themselves.

You've made sure that you'll enter, but by insisting that the Bible be read to know God's truth, you've damned billions to hellfire.

 

Congratulations!

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

@ Thumbelina:

 

As to Judges:

 

I can't give more time to it right now, and perhaps you have other stuff to do now, too. Anyway, the conclusion that the tribe of Judah failed in Judges 1:19 because of disobedience/unbelief is not a conclusion that arises from that passage. It is a conclusion that follows from applying other parts of the Bible to that part. The method involved in such an interpretive move is what I called begging the question because it assumes the truth and consistency of the whole collection of documents. I can easily see a pastor or theologian giving a congregation or a Christian reader the "failure because of unbelief" explanation (as your linked commentaries show even ancient Jewish exegetes did), but that explanation remains problematic without an inerrancy assumption (or something like one).

 

Judges starts 1:2 by saying that God gave the land into the hands of Judah. 1:19 reiterates this, the Lord was with Judah. Nothing is said about Judah disobeying or about God withdrawing his help when they got to the cities of the plain. The text as you know just says that they could not conquer those cities because etc. chariots etc. If it was unbelief/disobedience that made them lose, the writer surely would have wanted to point this out, since the theme of disobedience/God's withdrawal/repentence/ etc. permeates the book of Judges. We just don't have a reason given for this defeat when all we know here is that the Lord was with Judah. To reason, oh, they lost, so they must have disobeyed -- that reasoning can be justified theologically but it's not in the text. Instead, another picture emerges from the text.

 

The chronology of those chapters and the Book of Joshua is quite skewed. For example, Joshua is dead when Judges opens, and lots of events happen afterwards, and later we're back to the time just after Joshua's death. There are also incompatible accounts, e.g. three incompatible statements about the attack on Jerusalem - differences in which tribe attacked, the result. My take (haven't studied those books for many years) is that various accounts have been stitched together and not all the inconsistencies were ironed out. Later Jewish exegetes noticed this and wrote into their commentaries various explanations, such as the Targum writer who offered the "disobedience" explanation that the Protestant exegetes on your website also offered.

 

So my impression is that behind the biblical account, there's a layer of legend that has the Israelites win some, lose some... kill some, enslave others. Later on in the transmission of these stories, others add theologically-motivated explanations for the defeats. All this stuff is later united into the narrative that we call Judges, the seams and dislocations in which betray its original strata.

 

I say "legend" because I'm not up on this, but I think a considerable body of opinion holds that the narratives of the exodus, migration into Canaan, and conquest are basically legend. Albright found burn levels in his archeological digs but as I recall they don't match the dates of the supposed conquest.

[mymistake]

Jesus is our high priest and he does wear a breastplate of righteousness on His chest which indicates He's perfectly righteous and He's holding His children close to His heart.

 

 

I hope I am able to use this image, I put the link so credit is given. It shows some of the garment of the high priest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.goodsalt..../lwjas0107.html

 

Christ is our high priest and his clothing depicts different characteristics or roles than He has or performs.

 

You do realize that this garment was used for divination? Back then the Hebrews used something akin to reading fortunes by casting lots. That was what the ephod did. You would drop a token into a slot and it would come up one side or the other. It's not all that different than a witch doctor reading chicken bones or tea leaves.

[mymistake]

Lack of faith IS disobedience. If God is for us who can be against us?

 

So now faith is not belief? How is faith action? If we owe this action to your God when there is no evidence that God exists then don't we owe the same action to all gods and goddesses for whom there is also no evidence that they exist?

 

You best get with the sacrifices to Oden, Zeus, Ra, Dagon and all the rest.

[Thumbelina]

So now faith is not belief? How is faith action?

 

 

... These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me ... Isa 29:13

 

In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

 

... there is no evidence that God exists ...

 

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Ps 19:1

[mymistake]

Yes, good, you seem to know how to follow doctrine throuhout the bible. You need to do so with the text we were discussing. Vs 18 is quite vague but there are other places in the bible that gives more details as to what was happening.

 

Did God not get a proper education? Why is God such a vague writer? It almost sounds like it was written by barbarians who were thousands of years behind us in technology and understanding. Wait a minute . . .

 

 

Because means due to the fact that. One needs to find out why the hell did they let chariots intimidate them when they had God and so one needs to look at other texts to see what happened.

 

 

Eg. at first glance one would think God was commanding a lot of the heinous acts in the book of Judges but one has to KEEP reading! It was summed up at the end by stating that the people were doing what was right in their OWN eyes.

 

The end of Judges has God order the near extermination of the Tribe of Benjamin for the rape and death of a woman. Thousands of babies were butchered, thousands of innocent women were killed, even thousands of innocent men were killed - all of them God's chosen people and all of them at God's order.

 

It's easy to understand. There was a war caused by humans who then blamed God for the result. It's propaganda.

[mymistake]

So now faith is not belief? How is faith action?

 

 

... These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me ... Isa 29:13

 

 

Show me coming near to God. You can only use that as a metaphor for an entirely subjective experience. How is faith not belief? You have no objective evidence to tell the difference between someone with a heart close to God and someone who is just putting on an act.

 

... there is no evidence that God exists ...

 

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Ps 19:1

 

Clearly you can provide no evidence of God. That is why you have to quote a book. If your claims are not bankrupt then show me evidence. Otherwise admit that you do not know what you are talking about.

[dyanaprajna0]

Using the bible to prove the bible. That's funny. We could do the same with the Qur'an, the various Eastern religious texts, like the Baghavad Gita, or any other text that claims to be from a divine source. Why accept one over the others? Why reject all these others? They all have the same merit as the bible. If you accept one based purely on it's own word, you have to accept all the others. NONE of them have any evidence to back up their claims, and, as I've studied a great deal of religious texts, I've found that the bible is the least logical and most nonsensical of all of them. I'd much rather prefer the Gita or the Qur'an over the bible. But I also don't accept the idea of imaginary sky fairies either. The Vedas are older than any other text, why not accept it? It makes the same claims to divine authority as the bible. It's all just pick and choose. Most people are in the religion they are, because it's what they were born into, so the indoctrination started earlier on and had enough time to take effect. That's it. There's no proof of gods anymore than there is of santa clause and unicorns. It's ridiculous. Maybe one day, Thumbalina, you'll see how ignorant your beliefs are, and come to the logical realization that we all here have come to: there is no god. No heaven and hell. No sky fairies or scary monsters hiding under the bed. Just this. Reality. And, once you drop all the hocus pocus superstitions of your religion, you'll see just how wonderful this life and reality can really be. Lose the ignorance. Drop the blind emotionalism. Get rid of the rigid irrational dogmatism. And actually live life. Not hiding behind a book that reads worse than Grimm, or in a protective bubble to keep you from the monsters under the bed. But this reality. The truth of life. It's hard, but once you do it, you'll realize it's not that scary.

[agnosticator]

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Ps 19:1

 

The OT/NT authors believed the "firmament" was a domed ceiling with windows that opened occasionally to let rain, etc. out. God decorated the ceiling with stars. The eagles must have bumped their heads more than a few times.

 

This nitpicking about titties or chests highlights just how IRRELEVANT and OBSOLETE the Bible is!

[bornagainathiest]

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Ps 19:1

 

How?

 

I'm an amateur astronomer Thumbelina, so please educate me.

 

Please show me where and how (not using Bible references, but with something I can see thru my 'scope) the heavens declare the glory of God.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Thumbelina,

 

Your conclusions are quite wrong. Here's how...

 

Anyway, if the apostle John had meant a man's chest/breast, why did he use MASTOIS when he could have used STETHOS, as he did in Revelation 15:6?

 

 

I am no theologian but from what I garnered John did put a masculine form for breast which was really a chest. The bible does proclaim the everlasting gospel (good news).

 

I never looked into this before but I can give my opinion based on what I know about God and the gospel. Females are or tend to be nurturing and the bible does use figures of speech that depict God with nurturing attributes. Maybe that is why John used that word?

 

Jesus is our high priest and he does wear a breastplate of righteousness on His chest which indicates He's perfectly righteous and He's holding His children close to His heart.

 

Thumbelina, you are confusing the Greek word THORAKA ( a breastplate) with what's actually written in Revelation 1:13 and 15:6, the word ZONEN/ZONAS ( a belt ).

 

http://biblos.com/revelation/1-13.htm

 

See that? MASTOIS (breasts) ZONEN (a belt) CHRYSAN (golden)

 

Mastois may be a Masculine noun, but why is it written in the plural, breastS?

A man has a breast (singular), not breasts (plural).

 

Even if mastois is a masculine noun, that in itself doesn't mean that John was using it to describe a man's breast (singular). Why? Because look at the way Luke (the Physician) uses Mastois in Luke 11:27...

 

http://biblos.com/luke/11-27.htm

 

Strong's number http://concordances.org/greek/3149.htm says that this is a Masculine noun, but Luke (the Doctor) is clearly using it in it's female sense. Now, being a Healer, he should know the difference between a man's chest and a woman's breasts (mammary glands), wouldn't you agree? Therefore, your assertion that because Mastois is a masculine noun, John must have meant a masculine chest is unsupportable.

And simply wrong.

 

Clearly in NT Greek the word Mastois can be used to describe either a male breast or the female breasts. But the real clincher is the fact that John uses it in it's plural sense... BREASTS.

 

Also, scripture is quite clear that there is only ONE high priest who is interceding with the Father - Jesus Christ. Only he has the right to wear the high priests breastplate. But look at Rev 15:6!

What's this?

 

http://biblos.com/revelation/15-6.htm

 

Seven angels are dressed in exactly the same way as you say Jesus is - wearing a golden breastplate. That can't be right, can it? When have angels ever had the right to intercede on our behalf with the Father?

So, according to you, Jesus is wearing a breastplate and therefore the seven angels must also be wearing the high priest's breastplate too.

 

Wrong! 100% incorrect! False!

 

You've confused THORAKA with ZONEN/ZONAS.

The first is a metal breastplate studded with gemstones.

The second is sash of soft material.

 

 

I hope I am able to use this image, I put the link so credit is given. It shows some of the garment of the high priest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.goodsalt..../lwjas0107.html

 

Christ is our high priest and his clothing depicts different characteristics or roles than He has or performs.

 

 

 

Being in someone's bosom indicates being dear to them or being safe. This PARABLE depicts that:

 

 

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

 

 

 

2859 kólpos – properly, the upper part of the chest where a garment naturally folded to form a "pocket" – called the "bosom," the position synonymous with intimacy (union).

 

 

I believe that is what John wanted to show.

 

No, it's quite simple.

The Apostle John turned and saw a figure with breastS. Jesus is a fusion of male and female. Deal with it.

........................

 

Rev 15:6 "And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.

 

In the above verse, the angels have their breasts girded also but the word for breast was stethos. I am speculating here but maybe there is a distinction because no created being is innately good but God.

 

And this is why no created being may wear a high priests breastplate - only Jesus may do that.

 

Only God can die for mankind and only God can judge mankind.

 

So I think the biblical writer wanted to show a distinction between angels and God and to show God's compassionate side. Jesus is our judge in the judgment but He is ALSO our defense attorney.

 

Wrong conclusions!

 

No breastplate = no high priest = faulty interpretation on Thumbelina's part.

 

The proper conclusion is that John saw a female/male Jesus. Period.

 

BAA.

[Thumbelina]

#79

 

 

ficino

Thumbelina

 

 

 

As to Judges:

 

I can't give more time to it right now, and perhaps you have other stuff to do now, too. Anyway, the conclusion that the tribe of Judah failed in Judges 1:19 because of disobedience/unbelief is not a conclusion that arises from that passage. It is a conclusion that follows from applying other parts of the Bible to that part. The method involved in such an interpretive move is what I called begging the question because it assumes the truth and consistency of the whole collection of documents. I can easily see a pastor or theologian giving a congregation or a Christian reader the "failure because of unbelief" explanation (as your linked commentaries show even ancient Jewish exegetes did), but that explanation remains problematic without an inerrancy assumption (or something like one).

 

 

I did not see your post until after, I saw MMs craziness and responded to that You can't use secular methodologies to interpret spiritual truths, it will seem off. From a spiritual perspective one looks at Israel's past victories and defeats and anytime they were defeated it was because of disobedience. In the biblical narrative, the Israelites caused the wall at Jericho to fall because God was with them. Now, if the text stated that God helped them and later it says that they were unable to defeat people because they had iron chariots it means that there was some disobedience or lack of faith. I looked up the text last night in my study bible for women and they said the same thing I did. The people showed lack of faith.

 

 

Judges starts 1:2 by saying that God gave the land into the hands of Judah. 1:19 reiterates this, the Lord was with Judah. Nothing is said about Judah disobeying or about God withdrawing his help when they got to the cities of the plain. The text as you know just says that they could not conquer those cities because etc. chariots etc. If it was unbelief/disobedience that made them lose, the writer surely would have wanted to point this out, since the theme of disobedience/God's withdrawal/repentence/ etc. permeates the book of Judges. We just don't have a reason given for this defeat when all we know here is that the Lord was with Judah. To reason, oh, they lost, so they must have disobeyed -- that reasoning can be justified theologically but it's not in the text. Instead, another picture emerges from the text.

 

 

 

 

It is not stated explicitly in the particular text but God's sons (children) will know (or eventually they will know. There are potential sons ) what it means. The OT shows so much examples of God's people messing up and limited the Holy One of Israel. Sin separates people from God and God CANNOT work with unbelief.

 

 

The chronology of those chapters and the Book of Joshua is quite skewed. For example, Joshua is dead when Judges opens, and lots of events happen afterwards, and later we're back to the time just after Joshua's death. There are also incompatible accounts, e.g. three incompatible statements about the attack on Jerusalem - differences in which tribe attacked, the result. My take (haven't studied those books for many years) is that various accounts have been stitched together and not all the inconsistencies were ironed out. Later Jewish exegetes noticed this and wrote into their commentaries various explanations, such as the Targum writer who offered the "disobedience" explanation that the Protestant exegetes on your website also offered.

 

Much of the bible is not written chronologically, the bible is designed to keep people interested and there is great satisfaction in figuring out the details. I am sure what you see as inconsistencies are misunderstanding on your part. Also the bible has chiasms. That's why it goes over what was stated beforeor it has headlines and then explanations.

 

So my impression is that behind the biblical account, there's a layer of legend that has the Israelites win some, lose some... kill some, enslave others. Later on in the transmission of these stories, others add theologically-motivated explanations for the defeats. All this stuff is later united into the narrative that we call Judges, the seams and dislocations in which betray its original strata.

 

I say "legend" because I'm not up on this, but I think a considerable body of opinion holds that the narratives of the exodus, migration into Canaan, and conquest are basically legend. Albright found burn levels in his archeological digs but as I recall they don't match the dates of the supposed conquest.

 

You choose to believe what skeptics write and I choose to believe what the bible states and what certain biblical commentators write.

Anyway, you don't believe the bible but I thank you for the discussion anyway

[Thumbelina]

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Ps 19:1

 

The OT/NT authors believed the "firmament" was a domed ceiling with windows that opened occasionally to let rain, etc. out. God decorated the ceiling with stars. The eagles must have bumped their heads more than a few times.

 

This nitpicking about titties or chests highlights just how IRRELEVANT and OBSOLETE the Bible is!

 

I tend to miss YOU when you are'nt around for some reason. I said you and NOT your shenanigans, OK.

[mymistake]

I did not see your post until after, I saw MMs craziness and responded to that You can't use secular methodologies to interpret spiritual truths, it will seem off.

 

Thumbelina why do you lie so much? Isn't false witness a sin in your creed? You Bible says that bearing false witness is a sin. It's forbidden in one of the ten commandments. Yet you bear false witness constantly just like you did it the section I quoted above. Now doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Remember what the Bible says Jesus said regarding hypocrites.

[Thumbelina]

I did not see your post until after, I saw MMs craziness and responded to that You can't use secular methodologies to interpret spiritual truths, it will seem off.

 

Thumbelina why do you lie so much? Isn't false witness a sin in your creed? You Bible says that bearing false witness is a sin. It's forbidden in one of the ten commandments. Yet you bear false witness constantly just like you did it the section I quoted above. Now doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Remember what the Bible says Jesus said regarding hypocrites.

 

You still trolling my posts?

What are you going on about now?

[centauri]

Jesus is our high priest and he does wear a breastplate of righteousness on His chest which indicates He's perfectly righteous and He's holding His children close to His heart.

Jesus cannot lay claim to that title.

Jesus isn't qualified to be a high priest according to the rules set down by God.

[mymistake]

I did not see your post until after, I saw MMs craziness and responded to that You can't use secular methodologies to interpret spiritual truths, it will seem off.

 

Thumbelina why do you lie so much? Isn't false witness a sin in your creed? You Bible says that bearing false witness is a sin. It's forbidden in one of the ten commandments. Yet you bear false witness constantly just like you did it the section I quoted above. Now doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Remember what the Bible says Jesus said regarding hypocrites.

 

You still trolling my posts?

 

I have never trolled your posts. Never started. Can't continue what never started.

 

What are you going on about now?

 

You lied. " . . . I saw MMs craziness . . . ". I confronted you regarding your dishonesty and hypocrisy. It was a legitimate opportunity for conversation. If you want to talk you know where I am.

[Thumbelina]

Jesus is our high priest and he does wear a breastplate of righteousness on His chest which indicates He's perfectly righteous and He's holding His children close to His heart.

Jesus cannot lay claim to that title.

Jesus isn't qualified to be a high priest according to the rules set down by God.

 

Well, apparently you are god.

Keep still and stop squirming and Jesus will put spittle and clay in those eyes of yours.

[Thumbelina]

 

 

What are you going on about now?

 

You lied. " . . . I saw MMs craziness . . . ". I confronted you regarding your dishonesty and hypocrisy. It was a legitimate opportunity for conversation. If you want to talk you know where I am.

 

IMO, what you wrote was craziness, of course you won't think so.

[mymistake]

What are you going on about now?

 

You lied. " . . . I saw MMs craziness . . . ". I confronted you regarding your dishonesty and hypocrisy. It was a legitimate opportunity for conversation. If you want to talk you know where I am.

 

IMO, what you wrote was craziness, of course you won't think so.

 

So you can make up any insult you like and God approves of this as long as it's your opinion? You sin against your own religion. Doesn't the Holy Spirit confront you with the way you discredit Christianity? Strange that an atheist like me has to do it.

 

Exodus 20:26

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour unless you really believe your own false witness. So don't bother to fact check or speak reasonable words. Instead believe in your heart that whatever you want to be the truth is the true because God cares more that you believe your own false witness than that your words be the truth. "

 

Oh and Thumb something isn't "craziness" just because you got cornered and don't have a reasonable answer. You play the role of an insult bot. You spout random insults - troll, snarky, robot and all the while you avoid defending your claims about Christianity making your religion look false.

[Thumbelina]

What are you going on about now?

 

You lied. " . . . I saw MMs craziness . . . ". I confronted you regarding your dishonesty and hypocrisy. It was a legitimate opportunity for conversation. If you want to talk you know where I am.

 

IMO, what you wrote was craziness, of course you won't think so.

 

So you can make up any insult you like and God approves of this as long as it's your opinion? You sin against your own religion. Doesn't the Holy Spirit confront you with the way you discredit Christianity? Strange that an atheist like me has to do it.

 

Exodus 20:26

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour unless you really believe your own false witness. So don't bother to fact check or speak reasonable words. Instead believe in your heart that whatever you want to be the truth is the true because God cares more that you believe your own false witness than that your words be the truth. "

 

Oh and Thumb something isn't "craziness" just because you got cornered and don't have a reasonable answer. You play the role of an insult bot. You spout random insults - troll, snarky, robot and all the while you avoid defending your claims about Christianity making your religion look false.

 

I can talk to others but I can see when I am talking to a proverbial brick wall. Anybody who says prove God as you have been doing CONSTANTLY is just worth maybe teasing a lil' and some prayers. If you don't want teasing then I'll leave you alone. When I leave you alone, you complain that I do. The bible declares God exists and most people believe a God exists, people who can't see it misunderstand what a God is about.

[mymistake]

I can talk to others but I can see when I am talking to a proverbial brick wall.

 

Sorry but your lack of objective evidence does not make me a brick wall. Be honest. The failure is on your end not mine.

 

Anybody who says prove God as you have been doing CONSTANTLY is just worth maybe teasing a lil' and some prayers.

 

It never crossed your mind that you might be wrong. You constantly are confronted by that thing you can't deal with and it doesn't occur to you that you are wrong.

 

If you don't want teasing then I'll leave you alone.

 

I didn't ask to be left alone. I asked for a real conversation. Fact is that you are the troll here. You are the one running from conversation and using teasing to make up for your lack of evidence. You cannot hang in a real conversation about theology. That is why I suggest that you talk about other things. Then you won't lose and you won't have to resort to teasing. In short people won't see you as a troll.

[dyanaprajna0]

What are you going on about now?

 

You lied. " . . . I saw MMs craziness . . . ". I confronted you regarding your dishonesty and hypocrisy. It was a legitimate opportunity for conversation. If you want to talk you know where I am.

 

IMO, what you wrote was craziness, of course you won't think so.

 

So you can make up any insult you like and God approves of this as long as it's your opinion? You sin against your own religion. Doesn't the Holy Spirit confront you with the way you discredit Christianity? Strange that an atheist like me has to do it.

 

Exodus 20:26

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour unless you really believe your own false witness. So don't bother to fact check or speak reasonable words. Instead believe in your heart that whatever you want to be the truth is the true because God cares more that you believe your own false witness than that your words be the truth. "

 

Oh and Thumb something isn't "craziness" just because you got cornered and don't have a reasonable answer. You play the role of an insult bot. You spout random insults - troll, snarky, robot and all the while you avoid defending your claims about Christianity making your religion look false.

 

I can talk to others but I can see when I am talking to a proverbial brick wall. Anybody who says prove God as you have been doing CONSTANTLY is just worth maybe teasing a lil' and some prayers. If you don't want teasing then I'll leave you alone. When I leave you alone, you complain that I do. The bible declares God exists and most people believe a God exists, people who can't see it misunderstand what a God is about.

 

HAAAAA ha ha ha! So just because the bible says god is real, and a lot of people think god is real, then it must be true. Well hot damn, I'm convinced. You can't seriously be using that as "proof".