Columbo

John - while I might be less informed, about atheistic answers to the bible, I'm not ignorant or un-informed about the bible.

I know that at times the destroyer came because of man. The problem is - that there are answers which can also be true, from a theological Christ position. If man chooses sin, then satan has now been given the authority that man had.

For example, even the OT says that God rewards the "fruit of your doings".

One has to remember - that if Jesus and the OT are both true - then when Jesus said no more should it be an eye for an eye - then this itself accounts for apparent changes which you might misconstrue as addage to scripture.

So - in the OT, it might be that God would require justice on earth - amongst his people of whom he actually abode with for a time - but then, if Jesus was true - and he says to turn the other cheek, then noticeable changes should also be seen, which you might call "apologetics" but nevertheless would STILL be the case.

And so - if Jesus did know about God - and that there would be change, then he would know more about the OT than any other Jew ever did - or what God actually meant - and did - in the OT. Essentially, satan tempted Christ also - and offered Christ kingdoms. Now - satan offering things? But God said man had dominion??? So do you now understand? Remember - man gave authority to satan, and chose satan when he chose sin.

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps, perhaps not. Would you please tell us when this Exodus/Conquest took place and what, if any, extra-biblical evidence for this you might have?

johntheapostate

I believe that a claim of human free will is lurking in your thread. I went mining through some of my posts regarding the issue and I will repost them here. I will show the the claim by Christians of the absolute free will of man finds considerable contradiction in the Bible. Here are my posts again.

I have gone through these passages before, but I would like to go through them again in order to clarify how believers in absolute predestination can integrate the many instances where god condemns and punishes individuals for choices they have made.

The passages from 2 Samuel 24 come to mind, where god is seen to be inciting David and at the same time condemning and punishing Davids actions

If one were not compelled to believe that god would not do such a thing, an idea that it was possible for god to be the instigator of certain behavior and at the same time condemn and punish the individual for that behavior could be justified in the plain reading of the text.


And it is just this conclusion that Paul expresses in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 9:16 ' It does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy. For the scriptures say to Pharaoh, I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

It is interesting that Paul immediately follows his message of god's mercy with an illustration from scripture that depicts god's lack of mercy in the case of Pharaoh and his people

In Paul's mind it is it is critical that he convey to his readers that god was responsible for initiating all human behavior, good or bad. In fact in these passages he explicitly places the fate of Pharaoh directly after his assertion of the absolute sovereignty of the will of god over the actions of man

We have the assertion that it was god who initiated the actions that led to death and destruction in Egypt. We also are informed of the motive. God initiated the series of event in order to glorify himself in the eyes of the Israelites and of the whole world.

To further illustrate that it was this he intended to convey, Paul adds the passage which show god taking ownership over the actions of men.

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden"

Paul shows that god does this only on the basis of his good pleasure, and to enforce that this is the case he anticipates and answers the objection that would only arise if this was so.

" One of you will say to me, Then why does god still blame us? For who resists his will"

This is a question that confirms Paul's intended message. For by his choice of words Paul affirms that yes he is intending that we are to understand that he believes that god will judge us for actions that god himself initiated.

And here we have the crux of the predestination answer to those who insist we must have free will and through this we are able to act in ways contrary to gods will and by which he is justified in imposing condemnation.

One can simply understand that even in those cases where it appears a choice is given and condemnation and punishment are the result, god is still the initiator of those actions.

In his choice of words " Why does he still blame US " Paul shows that he considers everyone to be subject to the doctrine he has just outlined and not just historical figures such as Pharaoh

To any reasonable person a god such as this has no basis in logic and reasonable behavior and we would expect some form of justification for this behavior. Paul supplies the answer to the objection .

" But who are you O man to talk back to god? shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why have you made me like this?"

Again Paul enforces his intended message. We are the product in every way, positive and negative of the intent of god. Paul reinforces his doctrine in the next passages.

" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use"

Again in his choice of words Paul hammers home his doctrine. In the form of question Paul explicitly defines the role of man and his destiny as having the same relationship as a lump of clay to a potter. To further enforce his point that we have no more influence over our destiny than an inanimate object Paul continues.

What if God choosing to show his wrath and make his power known bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction"

Here Paul clearly defines the reprobate as no more than an object, not preparing himself for destruction, but being prepared by god for destruction.

But why would God do such a thing? Paul could again have answered that we do not have the right to question the motives of god. But as a concession to his readers and a revelation of his personal belief, he elaborates further.

"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy whom he prepared in advance for glory, even us whom he also called."

And in this passage Paul reveals the justification for all god's actions. In the same way as the reprobate is an object prepared for destruction, the elect is simply an object of mercy prepared for glory. Both objects inherit there fate as a matter of god's good pleasure. And in the same way as god brought death and destruction on to the Egyptians in order that he might be glorified in the eyes of the Israelites and the world, he will also inflict eternal damnation on the reprobate so that he may be glorified in the eyes of the elect in that in comparison to the suffering of the damned the elect may be made aware of gods great mercy to them that received there blessing only at gods discretion and not on any merit in themselves.

johntheapostate

John 14: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains in him"

Here we have testimony that Jesus is the only path to salvation and we can see that in the choice of words "Gods wrath remains in him" that the condemnation of the individual is a preexisting condition as the wrath was not a result of the rejection but simply remains in him due to his rejection of Jesus.

John 6:40 "For my Fathers will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

My father was fond of this verse and used it to impress on me the free nature of salvation. He chose to ignore the testimony of the author of John only a few verses down.

John 6:44 " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day"

Some would argue that God has drawn everybody, but this is a very weak argument in the context of the verse For shortly afterward Jesus again formulates the same concept to explain his betrayal by Judas.

John 6:64-65 " For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"

Here the text specifically links unbelief to the concept that God had made belief impossible by withholding the enabling that had made it possible for the other disciples to believe.

John 8:47 " He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God"

Jesus had just gone on a fairly extended rant denouncing his countrymen as children of the devil etc and here he also specifies the reason that they reject him. They simply are those whom God has not extended the ability to believe.

So an argument could be made that God has extended the ability for some people to accept or reject Christ but certainly not the ability of everyone to do so on the basis of free will. and even that is a weak argument considering that Jesus insisted that everyone the Father would give him would come to him and would not be lost.

John 6:37 " All the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never drive away"



These verses hit hard at the concept of free will as far as the most important decision any person could make if in fact the New Testament is true. The decision on which rests the fate of ones eternal destiny. We could have perfect free will in all areas of life but it would be of zero value if the ability to reject or accept salvation rest on the good pleasure of gods will.


It is very important to some people that this be denied at all costs. For in their belief in the free will to accept or reject Christ rests there justification for infant salvation.

They just cant bear the thought of deceased infants suffering in agony for an eternity in hell. They subordinate the concept of original sin and make a conscious act of rejection of Christ the determining factor in the condemnation of certain persons to hell.


They insist that because the infant has not consciously rejected Christ he has automatic entrance into heaven.

They choose to ignore the testimony of the author of John which states that the wrath of God was a preexisting condition and that eternal life is dependent on a conscious act of belief on the part of the believer and this is only achieved by god enabling the person to do so.

The logical conclusion would be that as part of that enabling god would also have granted the infant the ability to live to an age where such a decision could be made.

Disclaimer I personally do not believe in anything I have just written. I am only showing the flexibility of Biblical interpretation using proof texts, which indicates that there is not a great truth contained in the Bible, but simply a selection of doctrines which Christians can and have chosen what suits them.

johntheapostate

Here is my reply to someone who indicated that they would find it difficult to believe in a god who would interfere in human free will.


You have indicated that it would be hard to maintain the integrity of your god concept if in fact free will did not exist. Are you sure that this is not affecting your judgment concerning the issue

For the sake of debate, lets presume that free will is something that god has bestowed generally on the human race. Will you admit that according to the testimony of scripture, god has overruled this attribute on certain occasions. For one example.

Joshua 11:19-20 “ not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts, to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy�

Is this not one instance were god intervened against the perhaps better judgment of the residents of those cities so that he could accomplish a preexisting goal? On the testimony of verses such as this is it logical to assume the benevolence that god has for each and every individual?

johntheapostate

I would like to address the subject of the reliability of the book of Genesis. Whether they admit it or not, the reliability of this book is crucial to the reliability of the Christian doctrine. Paul was explicit that Jesus had come to undo what the transgression of Adam had caused. If Genesis can be shown to be an inaccurate account, then any doctrine based on the account being accurate is suspect.

1 Corinthians 15:21 “ For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive�

(This is one of the passages the universalists like as it seems to indicate salvation for all)

Romans 5:12 “ Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin and in this way death came to all men�

It is clear that Paul believed that Adam and Eve actually existed and that the justification for the Christian belief rests on the doctrine that Jesus died as an atonement sacrifice for original sin.

Romans 3:25 “ God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement�

1Corinthians 5:7 “ For Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed�

Hebrews 7:27 “ He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself�

Hebrews 9:26 “ But now he has appeared at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself�

( one must wonder at the reliability of Pauls testimony, for he indicates in this passage that the end of the ages had now come to the readers of his letter)

What compels anyone to believe that the Genesis account is reliable. At one time faith in its legitimacy rested on the belief that Moses had authored it under the direction of the holy spirit. And in all honesty if it where shown to be a collection of fables and myth compiled by anonymous authors and redactors centuries after Moses the only reason to accept its testimony as athoritive would be the overwhelming desire to do so.

It is in conflict with science and itself, and the first thing I would like to address is this issue of a talking, walking snake. On the face of it, if one was not compelled to believe it was the word of god, rational people would dismiss it as a childish fairy tale.

Some people try to legitimize this myth by indicating that the serpent was actually the devil in disguise. If the body of the serpent had merely served as a disguise, why would god feel it necessary to curse all snakes from that time on ? I can show that belief in satan did not exist at the time this oral tradition came into existence. The story really did intend to convey to its readers that it had been a snake that had tempted the first two humans.

And which rational person believes that all animals which we regard as carnivores where origanly herbivores

Genesis 1:29-30 “ Then God said I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground, everything that has the breath of life in it, I give every green plant for food.�

I suppose one could imagine that all those carnivores which seem to be adapted in every way to hunt, kill and eat other animals subsisted on grass and other vegetation, but it would be an indication of the delusional nature of faith and not rational thought.

The whole story of an ark containing a complete spectrum of life forms, their food and water and all cared for by a crew of eight, boggles the mind. I believe more animals have gone extinct in the last six thousand years than could be housed and fed on the ark. But if one is to believe in the reliability of Genesis, this is something that must be believed. Where did they keep the fish and whales. Anyone who has kept tropical fish know how susceptible they are to even the slightest fluctuation in their environment. They would never have survived in the conditions of a flood described in the Bible. Some apologists claim that god allowed them to evolve to survive the conditions of the flood. They have zero scriptural proof for this and why would god go to the trouble of securing a representative of every life form that lived on land and let the sea creatures evolve to adapt to their environment. It would have been no more trouble to let everything evolve gills and adapt to the new conditions

And this claim of a six thousand year old earth is absurd considering that it has determined that there are stars that are billions of light years away. That would indicate that the star light that is reaching our eyes today had its origin billions of years ago. Indicating that our universe is at least that old.

I have digressed somewhat from the topic, concerning if Moses, under the authority of the holy spirit dictated the words of the book of Genesis, or if it was created at a later date by anonymous compilers and redactors whose motives and authority remain are suspect. I was trying to show that the extraordinary claims made in the book of Genesis can not be upheld on their own and if they where to carry any authority at all, the author would have to be known and considered athoritive.

I will now show how it could not have been Moses who wrote the book of Genesis.

We have an account of Lot being captured and the subsequent attempt by Abraham to free him

Genesis 14:14 “ When Abraham had heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in Pursuit as far as Dan.

To anyone who has not been shown the fallacy of this statement, nothing seems to be out of the ordinary in this verse. But If one is to go to the book of Judges it becomes apparent that this city did not exist at the time of Abraham and only came into existence after Moses had died.

Judges 18:28-29 “ The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel, though the city used to be called Laish.:

This verse shows that the account of Abraham is in part, and probably whole a fabrication of later anonymous compiler. .It clearly indicates that Moses was not the author of that account and perhaps not of any of the book.

The book of Genesis contains a list of the rulers of Edom.

Genesis 36:31" These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned.�

How could Moses have written this? It presupposes some, and probably all of the Israelite monarchy which certainly did not exist until after Moses had died.

The book of Chronicles is a book that was compiled after the monarchy had come to an end. It is interesting to note that the passages in Genesis can be found word for word in the book Chronicles.

1 Chronicles 1:43" These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned�

It then goes on to list the kings, and the list is word for word the same as in the book of Genesis .
Now this list makes perfect sense in Chronicles but not in Genesis. It is certain that the list was transferred from Chronicles to Genesis and not the other way around. This shows that the book of Genesis dates in part or whole from after the Israelite Monarchy and not the time of the exodus.

Many Christians have lowered their standard of proof in direct correlation of how that proof has been shown to be undependable. But even those who don’t care a whit who the author of Genesis was, should consider that it dates from a time well into the existence of Israel and was authored by anonymous men who’s motives had nothing to do with an accurate account of history, but who were most interested in creating propaganda that secured the Jewish claim to the land of Israel and their superior rank in its society.

Sven

No, I'm not. You totally missed the point.
It's simply that if we have an extraordinary claim (several millions of Jews wandering through the desert for 40 years is as (nearly as) extraordinary as the other claims I listed), then we need at least some evidence, but preferably extraordinary evidence that the event happened.
We have no evidence for Exodus, in spite of the fact that we should have evidence, so we reasonably conclude that it did not happen.
That's it.

Yes, it does. Is lack of evidence for the Greek gods not evidence that they did not exist?

I already corrected your analogy - it should be that there is no cut.

[snip wrong conclusion based on faulty analogy]

As I already said: archeologists know how massive migrations look like and what kind of evidence they leave behind. That's all.

Bullshit. Archeologists have not observed one instance of massive migrations - they have observed lots of massive migrations.

Read the book. I'm really tired of doing your homework.
But just to give you a clue: There are several resting places mentioned in the bible, which could be identified. They dug there - and found nothing.
You also continue to ignore the evidence that there was no conquest of Canaan - disproving the Exodus simultaneously.

Bullshit. If one look where evidence should be and there is none, the case is settled.

Please answer this simple question: Why should a migration larger than most of all others which archeologists could identify leave far less evidence than those others?

This is not an assumption, but evidenced by mountains of archeological (and geological and cosmological, if you like to argue for longer times) evidence.

Which conditions are you talking about, please?
Do you want to suggest that those folks did not burn fires?
That they did not eat? That they did not drink?
Or what?

Sven

Please tell me that you wrote this with a straight face. Un-fucking-believable!
Question: Do you see any difference between 3000 years and 60 000 000 years? Perhaps a tiny little difference? When you look closely? Please?

lol?
desert?
lol?

If you find my another migration of 2 million people through a desert, sure.

Sven

Then I wonder why so many believers find contradictions in the bible...