One Verse At A Time...

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains.

Wait a minute. Are you accusing us of studying the bible with a DISHONEST heart? If so, fuck off. I sincerely seek the truth. It wasn't until I used an honest open mind to look at EVERYTHING the bible says that I realized the bible is not the infallible word of some god.

 

Don't come into our house and accuse us of being dishonest. You owe us an apology.

[Antlerman]

It wasn't until I used an honest open mind to look at EVERYTHING the bible says that I realized the bible is not the infallible word of some god.

I wholeheartedly second that. I had to allow myself emotionally to be willing to accept the teachings were completely off beam. I would argue apologetics with the same zeal and conviction as sub_zero. Open heart? You betcha.

 

Fundamentalist, literalism is closed system, so be careful using the word “open”. Personally I think it says it more accurately to say, “If you approach the Bible with a closed mind, then you will see what it says”. An open heart and an open mind will naturally lead you out of a closed system.

 

Are you open to all posibilities? No? I rest my case.

[Ouroboros]

Well Pandora, I think unfortunately we have another cherry-picking Christian amongst us.

 

Of course anything can be explained when only "their" rules apply.

 

"This verse applies to the whole Bible, but this verse only apply to this book, and this verse only applies to this chapter. And this verse is literal, and this verse is an allegory, and this verse has the wrong translation." etc...

 

They use loopholes to get around the truth that stares them in the face!

 

What is the difference between me picking a verse and using all context and other elements to find out tthe meaning of the passage, but you do a different way... According to you, you are cherry-picking.

 

The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains.

 

The difference is that we do it to make it fit into something small called... REALITY!

 

While you do it to make it fit into your fantasy and delusion.

 

We try to use logic, reason, rationality and common sense when we analyze it.

 

You use tradition, other peoples faulty ideas and disputable arguments.

 

Bit difference.

 

The words in Revelations that say you can't add or remove anything from the book, can (and should) be applied to the whole Bible, but you don't want to do that. On the same token, you don't have a problem applying verse that compares Satan with a snake to Genesis.

 

Make up your mind! Can and should verses in Revelations be read in context of the whole Bible or not? Or is it just the verses that fit? Logic would say, all or nothing, not cherry-picking like you do. Not one verse but not the other. It should be both verses or none of them.

 

 

It’s kind of ironic that a god who is apparently so concerned about our salvation would require us to have NUMEROUS resources and concordances in order for us to get to the bottom of his message. Even George Lucas can explain the "force" better than BibleGod.

So very true. According to the Bible we should be like kids to receive the Gospel. But how can that be possible when you have to read 50,000 books written by apologists, and everyone contradict each other even more. Did Jesus talk about super-brainy-babies? Only babies that have IQ over 500 and can speed-read at age of 2 can learn all the different excuses necessary to explain away the contradictions in the Bible?

 

I think words of the kids sums up the problem with religion very easily:

 

"Mom?"

 

"Yes, hon"

 

"If everything that exists must have been created, then who created God?"

 

"I don't know! Shut up and eat your lunch."

[Antlerman]

So very true. According to the Bible we should be like kids to receive the Gospel. But how can that be possible when you have to read 50,000 books written by apologists, and everyone contradict each other even more. Did Jesus talk about super-brainy-babies? Only babies that have IQ over 500 and can speed-read at age of 2 can learn all the different excuses necessary to explain away the contradictions in the Bible?

[Japedo]

 

 

I'm leaning more towards option 1 but I am undecided until I do my studies on Genesis (which will be later this year).

 

 

Hmm, While you do your studying on Genesis Perhaps you can figure out how a Just god can be so blatantly unjust and vile, such as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and lot.

 

A city is supposedly destroyed because of sex crimes and sin. Lot is rewarded for offering up his own daughters to be ganged raped to spare the strangers. only when the gang wants the strangers and not the daughters is the mob blinded. Why were not the men in the house offered up to the mob to be raped? I take that their are men in the house by this verse. ( God now determined to destroy the cities of the plain. There were not even ten righteous men there. The angels said: " . . . Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it" (vv. 12–13). ) Lot and his family are allowed to escape into the hills away from gods wrath and judgment. the wife makes the huge ass mistake of turning around were as she's turned into a pillar of salt.

 

So what's a saved righteous man to do? What happens that night? Lot drinks and has sex with both his kids and plants his seed and this is suppose to be somehow righteous? Where are the sons in law now? Who was married? His daughters weren't his wife, they were his children. Quite possibly they were some one else's wife, so now on top of molestation, fornication and adultery, he fathered bastard children, Also caused his daughters to be pregnant with out a husband, in those day one could be killed for such things. This 'justice' wouldn't even stand up in a human court of law. God destroys people for sex crimes, then the righteous one commits sex crimes and is somehow just and made excuses for and paraded around as the hero. What a lopsided sense of Justice this just god has.

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I love the Lot story. It's one of the most immoral stories in the Bible!

 

Lot that wants to give his daughters to the citizens to be raped, and he was the righteous one.

 

He had sex with his daughters after the destruction, and he was ... you guessed it... the righteous one! Oh, wait, he was tricked into it by the evil women, just like Adam was tricked by Eve. Damn! It seems like thoses women are led by the devil all the time. But again, doesn't it show that Lot was a bad father, couldn't teach his daughter what was right and wrong? And yet again, didn't the fruit in Eden give us that ability, so we automatically should know what was right and wrong? This is getting confusing!

 

Then there's this huge explosion, and a normal reflex is that you turn and look, hard to avoid that reflex, you turn to salt.

[NotBlinded]

I think Pritishd was trying to make you solve the problem with that the psalmist is claiming the law that was given through Moses was perfect, while the NT authors claim Jesus completed it. How can you complete something that is already perfect? Isn't perfect already something that is complete?

 

But let's see if I understand you right, Psa 19:7 and 119:160 is not referring to the law that Moses brought from the supposed God, but it's referring to a perfect and eternal law in heaven, not yet presented to humanity, because Jesus was that "perfect law", and he completed the old law. On the other hand, in Romans the law that is referred to there is not the perfect heavenly law, but the Moses' law. Isn't it awkward to consider that psalmist was writing about the Heavenly law and not the law of Moses, while the authors of NT were writing about the laws of Moses and not the Heavenly law?

 

I wonder if the author of the psalms aware of this conflict? If not, can you be sure the full and perfect law even is completed with Jesus? You could be sitting in the same spot as the psalmist, not knowing that there might be new revelations God is holding back? Maybe the ultimate law is that everyone will be saved, but he just hasn't revealed it to us yet?

 

Ohh, ohhh...can I throw in a little quote here? Please???? Okay then, thanks!

 

"One example is the fact there are two words for law in the ancient Aramaic of Jesus but only one in English and Latin. Jesus plainly said to obey both, Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God, that which is God's". It is easy to recognize which is which. All laws are caused by forces, some from man and some from off the Earth. Those from off the earth causing laws on earth are God's laws. Those laws were eliminated by the word substitution system, as we had no word for forces from off the earth causing laws for us. Gravity is a force from off the earth causing the laws of gravity. Who is so foolish as to think this law is from men. Aramaic has a word "rukha" which stands for the forces of God causing laws on earth a concept not shown in Greek or Latin based Bibles."

 

From here.

 

Once again, I think it is a matter of words trying to cross barriers that different languages present.

[DanInPA]

Here are some of Jesus' own words according to the bible:

 

Mt 16:27-28

27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

 

 

 

Jn 14:12-14

12"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.

13" Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

 

 

Jn 17:20-23

20"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;

21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.22"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

 

 

Mk 16:17-1817

"These signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

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

These are the words of the Lord God in the OT

 

Deut. 18:22

22" When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

 

 

Clearly, the predictions I bolded didn't come true, therefore Jesus was a false prophet according to your Bible.

[Guest sub_zer0]

What do you mean by "using all context and other elements..." you'll have to phrase that better because it doesn't make any sense as it is. I could interpret it to what I think it means, but then I'd just be an apologist. And I'd rather you tell me what it really means.

 

I mean when they say I have to adhere to what Revelation says, when it is pertaining to just Revelation not the whole Bible. Context!

 

Numerous resources? Explain that, because right now it sounds like it's propaganda veiled in the guise of intelligence & facts.

 

Books, studying the Bible, praying about it. Theologians, etc, etc...

 

 

So where's your proof for this? So far the closest you've done is very circumstancially link a verse from the end of the bible to one at the beginning- as it has already been pointed out & not redressed by you. There's nothing in that revelation verse that remotely proves that the serpent is the same snake from the beginning. A serpent can be a great many things, not just a snake. And in context it appears to be nothing more than them talking about the Great Dragon/Satan (i.e. the serpent).

 

Actually if you took the time to read and study the Bible you would see that the serpent in Genesis is the devil as it is specified clearly in Revelation but written throughout the Bible.

 

And even if it is some author's weak attempt to link the metaphor back, it's done by a different author than the one who wrote Genesis, and he/they had a couple hundred years to write that verse in after the original was well known anyway, so the whole argument is really moot.

 

No it is one author throughout the Bible. That author is God Himself.

 

Hmm, While you do your studying on Genesis Perhaps you can figure out how a Just god can be so blatantly unjust and vile, such as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and lot.

 

A city is supposedly destroyed because of sex crimes and sin. Lot is rewarded for offering up his own daughters to be ganged raped to spare the strangers. only when the gang wants the strangers and not the daughters is the mob blinded. Why were not the men in the house offered up to the mob to be raped? I take that their are men in the house by this verse. ( God now determined to destroy the cities of the plain. There were not even ten righteous men there. The angels said: " . . . Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it" (vv. 12–13). ) Lot and his family are allowed to escape into the hills away from gods wrath and judgment. the wife makes the huge ass mistake of turning around were as she's turned into a pillar of salt.

 

Men aren't perfect and with the offering of the daughters in protecting of the men the mob of townspeople came to rape, Lot enraged the mob further, endangered his children and subsequentlyy because of that act the men, or angels had to intervene and accomplish their mission.

 

So what's a saved righteous man to do? What happens that night? Lot drinks and has sex with both his kids and plants his seed and this is suppose to be somehow righteous? Where are the sons in law now? Who was married? His daughters weren't his wife, they were his children. Quite possibly they were some one else's wife, so now on top of molestation, fornication and adultery, he fathered bastard children, Also caused his daughters to be pregnant with out a husband, in those day one could be killed for such things. This 'justice' wouldn't even stand up in a human court of law. God destroys people for sex crimes, then the righteous one commits sex crimes and is somehow just and made excuses for and paraded around as the hero. What a lopsided sense of Justice this just god has.

 

Actually, his children got him drunk and had sex with him because they thought they were the last people on earth. That is the how the earth was first populated, not excusing it, but giving you something to think about.

 

Lot isn't a hero because of his sex crimes, Lot is a hero because he was faithful to God despite his downfalls.

 

 

It’s kind of ironic that a god who is apparently so concerned about our salvation would require us to have NUMEROUS resources and concordances in order for us to get to the bottom of his message. Even George Lucas can explain the "force" better than BibleGod.

 

You are forgetting that His word is still AVAILABLE to us. You can read any Bible at face value. It takes all those other things to STUDY His word.

[white_raven23]

What do you mean by "using all context and other elements..." you'll have to phrase that better because it doesn't make any sense as it is. I could interpret it to what I think it means, but then I'd just be an apologist. And I'd rather you tell me what it really means.

 

I mean when they say I have to adhere to what Revelation says, when it is pertaining to just Revelation not the whole Bible. Context!

 

I asked for Biblical proof that the serpent in the garden was satan. You did not provide that.

 

Numerous resources? Explain that, because right now it sounds like it's propaganda veiled in the guise of intelligence & facts.

 

Books, studying the Bible, praying about it. Theologians, etc, etc...

 

The only resouce that SHOULD be considered valid AT all is the bible. Any other material is an expression of an OPINION regarding what the verses in the bible mean....THEY are not THE BIBLE. If the BIBLE is the word of god, no "other resources" should be necessary for all to understand.

 

Actually if you took the time to read and study the Bible you would see that the serpent in Genesis is the devil as it is specified clearly in Revelation but written throughout the Bible.

 

This is not an answer. I told you to provide Biblical proof.....gues what? I ALREADY KNEW THERE WASN'T ANY!!!! Because I've read the bible, and I double checked with a bible search engine before posting the question. There is NOT a single verse connecting the serpent in the garden to satan, or a devil, or Lucifer. NONE.

 

And even if it is some author's weak attempt to link the metaphor back, it's done by a different author than the one who wrote Genesis, and he/they had a couple hundred years to write that verse in after the original was well known anyway, so the whole argument is really moot.

 

No it is one author throughout the Bible. That author is God Himself.

 

No supreme being would condescend to being the author of such tripe. Sorry. The book is man authored. Full of man's mistakes and misconceptions.

So what's a saved righteous man to do? What happens that night? Lot drinks and has sex with both his kids and plants his seed and this is suppose to be somehow righteous? Where are the sons in law now? Who was married? His daughters weren't his wife, they were his children. Quite possibly they were some one else's wife, so now on top of molestation, fornication and adultery, he fathered bastard children, Also caused his daughters to be pregnant with out a husband, in those day one could be killed for such things. This 'justice' wouldn't even stand up in a human court of law. God destroys people for sex crimes, then the righteous one commits sex crimes and is somehow just and made excuses for and paraded around as the hero. What a lopsided sense of Justice this just god has.

 

Actually, his children got him drunk and had sex with him because they thought they were the last people on earth. That is the how the earth was first populated, not excusing it, but giving you something to think about.

 

Lot isn't a hero because of his sex crimes, Lot is a hero because he was faithful to God despite his downfalls.

 

According to this, incest was committed and god, the supreme being, the one who supposedly took the time to warn Lot and get his butt moving (and in so doing, took responsibility for the man and his welfare), THAT god saw no reason to inform these misguided family member this disgusting deed was unnecessary?

 

That's sick.

You are forgetting that His word is still AVAILABLE to us. You can read any Bible at face value. It takes all those other things to STUDY His word.

 

WRONG!!

I shouldn't need ANY resource beyond the bible itself! If it were truly god-breathed, then it's meaning would be clear and non-contradictory.

[Guest sub_zer0]

I asked for Biblical proof that the serpent in the garden was satan. You did not provide that.

 

Rev 12:9And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

 

The only resouce that SHOULD be considered valid AT all is the bible. Any other material is an expression of an OPINION regarding what the verses in the bible mean....THEY are not THE BIBLE. If the BIBLE is the word of god, no "other resources" should be necessary for all to understand.

 

No buddy. The word of God was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. So right there you need different resources other than the Bible to know what it means. Unless you know hebrew.

 

This is not an answer. I told you to provide Biblical proof.....gues what? I ALREADY KNEW THERE WASN'T ANY!!!! Because I've read the bible, and I double checked with a bible search engine before posting the question. There is NOT a single verse connecting the serpent in the garden to satan, or a devil, or Lucifer. NONE.

 

Rev. 12:9And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

 

No supreme being would condescend to being the author of such tripe. Sorry. The book is man authored. Full of man's mistakes and misconceptions.

 

Nope, God is the author of the Bible. You wanna back that up with scripture that man wrote it?

 

 

According to this, incest was committed and god, the supreme being, the one who supposedly took the time to warn Lot and get his butt moving (and in so doing, took responsibility for the man and his welfare), THAT god saw no reason to inform these misguided family member this disgusting deed was unnecessary?

 

That's sick.

 

If free will is sick.

[DanInPA]

No buddy. The word of God was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. So right there you need different resources other than the Bible to know what it means. Unless you know hebrew.

 

Right there you're indicating that god is incompetent. How could an all knowing, all powerful, all loving deity give its message to humans in a medium that is so easily misunderstood, or that requires one to be a scholar to understand it? Doesn't the bible say that you need to be like a child to know god?

 

Most humans could do a better job than that!

[thunderbolt]

Follower is just as confusing as the Word of man God.

 

Follower post #47

The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains.

 

Follower post #666

You are forgetting that His word is still AVAILABLE to us. You can read any Bible at face value . It takes all those other things to STUDY His word.

 

Follower post #68

No buddy. The word of God was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. So right there you need different resources other than the Bible to know what it means. Unless you know hebrew.

 

Follower cannot get the message straight, so follower needs to change the message like BibleGod before we can know what it means, because read at face value the contradictions can be pointed out by a six year old.

[white_raven23]

This has been explained to you. Lemme try again using really clear language. Listen up.

 

Rev. 12:9And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

 

 

The purple words are DESCRIBING the red words. That is all. Serpent is describing the nature of the dragon. The dragon is an old serpent. The presence of satan and his angels on earth does NOT mean they were in the garden of Eden. They were on earth. That is all.

 

They say NOTHING of the presence of satan in the Garden of Eden.

 

 

 

Keep in mind, Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden....they no longer had the right to be there according to god.

 

The snake was punished......but WAS IT EJECTED from Eden? NO it wasn't!

 

By that logic, satan was punished, but allowed to remain in the special garden, while Adam and Eve were cast out, and an angel guard posted to prevent their return!

 

That doesn't make any sense! The snake cannot be satan, and there is nothing in the bible that says the snake is satan.

 

Only Popular Christian Myth makes the snake satan! THAT is very much the word of man! Don't even try to say it's god's word (in the bible), or you will be admitting that biblegod was made in man's image.

[Antlerman]

No buddy. The word of God was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. So right there you need different resources other than the Bible to know what it means. Unless you know hebrew.

I thought the Bible says that God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save the world. Are you saying that we should add language scholars to that list? How about anthropologists? Isn't understanding cultural contexts important? What about archeologists? Paleontologists? Astrophysicists? Mathematicians? Belly Dancers? Maytag repair men? Mr. Clean?

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

No supreme being would condescend to being the author of such tripe. Sorry. The book is man authored. Full of man's mistakes and misconceptions.

 

Nope, God is the author of the Bible. You wanna back that up with scripture that man wrote it?

 

 

 

 

 

you are looking at this question incorectly, you are the one making fantasitic claims, so the burden of proof is on you

 

Let me ask you a questions, what do you think of all of the other religious texts in the world, were they all man made?

 

I could provide just as much evidence from history and archeology that the bible is man made and highly inacurate....I could even provide you with multiple condradictions in the bible itself, but what difference would it make if you have already decided to accept the bible and reject all other religious texts, a priori.

 

I can use all the same arguemtents that christians use to dismiss other religions to dismiss christiainty as well.

 

And how absurd is it to ask for proof that the bible man made, from the bible. Of couse the bible claims to be inspired by God....so does the Quaran. I dont' accept its rule either

[Alice]

 

 

Nope, God is the author of the Bible. You wanna back that up with scripture that man wrote it?

 

 

 

 

 

That's the funniest thing I've ever read.

 

Soooo - if there was a scripture that said man wrote it ~ you wouldn't trust it anyway! As you only trust words you think were penned by God.

 

What your holy book does say is that NO ONE can know the mind of God ...

 

If God had written the words with a great big celestial biro, it would still be a useless exercise - because the moment the words enter your head they become limited by your fallible understanding and can never be any more than you fallible and human understanding of some words that in your fallible and human way you attribute to your deity.

 

The whole idea of an accessible infallible 'word of god' being received by a fallible and errant human brain (which is backed up by your holy book) is a nonsense from the outset.

[Ouroboros]

Nope, God is the author of the Bible. You wanna back that up with scripture that man wrote it?

 

You mean something like this:

Luk 1:3 KJVA It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Luke wrote to Theophilus, not God.

 

1Co 4:14 KJVA I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

Paul thought he was God? Or is Paul God in your eyes?

 

1Co 14:37 KJVA If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Paul thought he was writing for God. You just happen to trust Pauls words when he say that he did. But it is Paul's words, not God writing it.

 

You want me to continue?

 

Your opinion is that man were led by God to write those things, but that's just an assumption based on their own words. It's like me saying "I'm telling you the truth, because I'm telling you the truth, and I don't lie"... wait a minute, someone else said that already... and it was just as wrong argument then as now.

 

 

I mean when they say I have to adhere to what Revelation says, when it is pertaining to just Revelation not the whole Bible. Context!

How the context goes is totally arbitrarily based on which denominations, church and preacher you're listening to. I heard sermons where the "don't add or remove anything" from Revelations was preached as the context for the WHOLE Bible. Let's remove those preachers as false preachers. And then we go on the all the other preachers wrongful contexts that doesn't match yours. Aaah, we end up with ... no preachers... damn! All of the, for all time have made contextual errors according to your little way of seeing things, so we have no-one to listen to, and no one is right, all of them false, besides YOU! WOW!

[Caretaker]

Nope, God is the author of the Bible. You wanna back that up with scripture that man wrote it?

You can't even prove that God exists, let alone that he wrote the Bible. Yet you have the audacity to ask us for proof otherwise?

 

You are the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on YOU!

[Open_Minded]

Yooo ..... Hooo.... Sub_Zero still waiting. I hope you haven't forgotten the verses I requested enlightment on

 

 

Having some trouble understanding a passage in the Bible? Perhaps I can help. Just list ONE passage and explain what the problem is you see. I will then post back what the passage means hopefully eliminating the problem you see.

 

Hello Sub_zero:

 

You haven't answered my original question, regarding this Bible verse:

De 34:5: Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord's command.

"How did Moses write about his own death"?

 

I understand you have many other verses to explain... and am willing to wait. But, last night I thought of another verse.

 

Ge 6:19: And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.

 

How did Moses get two of EVERY kind onto the ark, with ALL the food needed to keep them alive? Besides the fact that he would have had to search the entire earth for EVERY single type of living animal, it would have taken hundreds of years. Then when he got some of the animals rounded up and went to look for more, it would only make sense that a portion of the first set would "escape", or maybe die. And how did he keep the lions from eating other animals onboard the ark? On top of all of that, the weight of that many animals would have sunk the ark.

 

Sub_Zero the two questions I've given you any Sunday School student could ask.

 

It's a bit like the A Simple Method To Prove The Bible Is Not Inspired By A God thread.

 

Even a 10 year old will come up with challeging questions for the adults who believe in the stuff written in that story book.

[Ouroboros]

OM, you didn't know? The Ark problem is easily solved.

 

First of all, Noah was flying around earth on a dragon-dinosaur to pick up all the animals.

 

And then God used a shrink-ray to get them to fit in the ark.

 

He then put them into suspended animation, same style as Sci-Fi movies.

 

It's friggin simple, really, as long as you have little imagination!

[Open_Minded]

OM, you didn't know? The Ark problem is easily solved.

 

First of all, Noah was flying around earth on a dragon-dinosaur to pick up all the animals.

 

And then God used a shrink-ray to get them to fit in the ark.

 

He then put them into suspended animation, same style as Sci-Fi movies.

 

It's friggin simple, really, as long as you have little imagination!

 

Thanks for explaining that to me HanSolo.... The children in our Sunday School classes told us adults pretty much the same thing. But, we didn't think that little children would be able to figure such complex things out

[Ouroboros]

Sorry for sidetracking the issue. I forgot we were in Colosseum.

[Eponymic]

I mean when they say I have to adhere to what Revelation says, when it is pertaining to just Revelation not the whole Bible. Context!

 

Okay, now that makes sense.

 

Books, studying the Bible, praying about it. Theologians, etc, etc...

 

So according to this, you only study those who affirm your point of view and stay within your little box. You don't bother to see what the other points of view, research, and history outside of your views are before forming your opinions or beliefs. That's what this says to me.

 

So where's your proof for this? So far the closest you've done is very circumstancially link a verse from the end of the bible to one at the beginning- as it has already been pointed out & not redressed by you. There's nothing in that revelation verse that remotely proves that the serpent is the same snake from the beginning. A serpent can be a great many things, not just a snake. And in context it appears to be nothing more than them talking about the Great Dragon/Satan (i.e. the serpent).

 

Actually if you took the time to read and study the Bible you would see that the serpent in Genesis is the devil as it is specified clearly in Revelation but written throughout the Bible.

 

Boy, this is what really bites by begonias about typical Christians. The grotesque, blanket assumptions that they make. Asking me to study the bible, which I have, does not answer the question. All you did was double talk & throw accusations. Learn some real acumen then come back my way cochese.

 

Oh, and excuse me. Didn't you come here & offer to answer questions/quandries about Bible verses? You're basically negating your whole thread.

 

No it is one author throughout the Bible. That author is God Himself.

 

And you accuse me of not studying. Oy! I'll just shake my head and feel sorry for you, because obviously, you're not ready to hear what's really out there beyond your little ice rink.

 

Sorry for sidetracking the issue. I forgot we were in Colosseum.

 

It's okay. You still rule.

[Kuroikaze]

The people who wrote the creation fable in the bible didn't believe in Satan. Satan was a creation of late judaic theology, post babylonian exile.

 

Since the first 5 books of the bible were likely written and compliled some starting about 900 BCE and were finished by 500 BCE they predate the concept of satan in Judaism by at least 100 years. This is why you only find Satan mentioned in Daniel in the old testament.

 

And no the book of Job doesn't count because the Satan in Job is not a fallen angel, he is an angel who goes around testing people to see how faithful they are to God. Try to rectify this story with the fact that Satan was supposed to be thrown out of heaven, and yet he repetedly come to God in heaven and discusses Job with God.

 

No its obvious to anyone that the satan in Job has nothing in common with the christian concept of Satan, which did not exist until 350BCE at the earliest.