Bible

[aljhoa]

"The time has come for honest men to denounce false teachers and attack false gods." -- Luther Burban

Discrediting "Australian Aborigines" beliefs or imposing their way of life on the rest of the world only assists "gods’ chosen".
Al

[Schpankme]

Discrediting "Australian Aborigines" beliefs or imposing their way of life on the rest of the world only assists "gods’ chosen".
Al

The Dream Time

The first Aboriginal settlers colonized what is now Australia about 80,000 years ago. The name "aborigine" derives from the Latin, meaning "original inhabitants." There are approx. 400,000 aborigines living in Australia.

Aboriginal spirituality entails a close relationship between humans and the land. Aborigines call the beginning of the world the Dream Time and the aboriginals documented that their "Ancestors" rose from below the earth to form various parts of nature including animal species, bodies of water, and the sky.

Hey Al, how many revisions do you think the Aboriginals created to describe their history and cave art?

Schpankme

“Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known.” -- Oscar Wilde

[Schpankme]

... the rest of the world only assists "gods’ chosen...

The "Mosaic Revelation" Forgery

When Yahveh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, and announced himself as "the God of thy fathers," he was a total stranger to Moses; Moses did not at all know him, had never heard of him; so that he asked, "What is thy name?" -- so that he could report it to the people back home in Egypt, who had never heard it. After some intermission, the God came directly to the point, and declared -- l quote the exact words -- one of the most notorious falsities in Holy Writ:

"And elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, anoki Yahveh -- I am the Lord!

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of el-shaddai, but by my name Yahvch (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them." (Ex. 6:2, 8)

Here we have the positive averment of the Hebrew God himself to the effect that here, for the first time since the world began, is "revealed" to mankind the "ineffable name" of Yahveh, here first appearing in the Bible translations, and there printed as JEHOVAH in capital letters; for more vivid and awe-inspiring impression. But this is a capital Lie of the Lord, or of his biographer who imputed it to him.

In verse 4 of Genesis 2, the name YAHVEH first appears; "in the day that Yahveh-elohim made the earth and the heavens." Its first recorded use in the mouth of a mystical personage, was when Mother Eve "conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahveh -- the Lord." (Gen. 4:1)

One hundred and fifty-six times the personal name YAHVEH occurs in the Book of Genesis alone; and scores of times in the mouths of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, as any one may read in Genesis, with the assurance that every single time that the title "the Lord" and "the Lord God" appears, it is a false translation by the priests for the Hebrew personal name YAHVEH.


Throughout the Hebrew "Scriptures" the Divine Name occurs thousands of times:

"The sacred name occurs in Genesis about 156 times; ... in round numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name." (Catholic Encyclopedia - CE. VIII, 829, 331)

More exactly, what is called the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, appears in the Old Testament 6823 times as the proper name of God as the God of Israel. As such it serves to distinguish him from the gods of the other nations.

Thus was the Hebrew tribal god YAHVEH distinguished from Bel, and Chemosh, and Dagon, and Shamash, and the scores of "gods of the nations"; just as Bill distinguishes its bearer from Tom, Dick, and Harry:

This was precisely the Hebrew usage -- to distinguish one heathen god from another.

The false translators sought to hide, giving names to all the "other gods," but suppressing a name for the Hebrew deity, who as "the Lord," or "the Lord God," was high and unique, "a god above all gods," -- the one and only true God.

But yet more malicious and evil-intentioned of deception:

6828 times is the name of the Hebrew God concealed by false rendition for the deliberate purpose of forging the whole Hebrew Bible, as translated, into semblance of harmony with the false avowal of Exodus 6:3, that "by my name YAHVEH was I not know unto them."

Search as one may, outside Exodus 6:3, the god-name YAHVEH (Jehovah) is never to be found in the translations in a single instance, except in Psalm 83:18, and Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4.

The false translations thus "make truth to be a liar," the lie of Exodus 6:3 to seem the truth; and a barbarous heathen tribal god among a hundred competitive gods to be the nameless, One Lord God of the Universe.

The Hebrew-Christian One God is a patent Forgery and Myth; a mythical Father-god can have no "only begotten Son"; Jesus Christ is nothing but a fairytale, born in the fancies of the Church Fathers.

With respect to the mythical Hebrew-Christian God or gods, we may safely say, as says Father Justin Martyr apropos of the other mythic Pagan gods:

"And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned." (First Apology, ch. VI; ANF. I, 169)

Schpankme

"One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives." -- Mark Twain

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Schpankme;

The "Mosaic Revelation" Forgery

This is obviously from chapter 1 of the book by Joseph Wheless. (Why don't you post more of your sources?)

Wheless, "Forgery in Christianity" - Checking the quotes. The criteria I propose to use are these:

1. Is the reference correct?
2. Is the citation verbally accurate?
3. Does the citation fairly represent the views of the author as expressed in that document? (i.e. has the citation been made selectively to distort the quotation, or does it include all relevant words/phrases/qualifications?)

I have attached a summary, as it is a weary business to trudge through all this invective.

2. Wheless, Intro p.6:

The great Church Father, Bishop St. Augustine (of whom more hereafter), was wise to the psychology of -- at least -- Pagan religion -- the mode of its incipience and the manner of its age-long persistence. The priests and the priest-taught, he tells, instilled the virus of superstition into their victims when "small and weak," when they knew not to resist or healthily to react against the contaminating inoculation; "then, afterwards, it was necessary that succeeding generations should preserve the traditions of their ancestors, drinking in this superstition with their mother's milk." (Augustine, City of God, xxii, 6.)

NFPF: <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-28.htm#P4361_2382272>

But who believed that Romulus was a god except Rome, which was itself small and in its infancy? Then afterwards it was necessary that succeeding generations should preserve the tradition of their ancestors; that, drinking in this superstition with their mother's milk, the state might grow and come to such power that it might dictate this belief, as from a point of vantage, to all the nations over whom its sway extended. And these nations, though they might not believe that Romulus was a god, at least said so, that they might not give offence to their sovereign state by refusing to give its founder that title which was given him by Rome, which had adopted this belief, not by a love of error, but an error of love.

REFERENCE - OK. VERBAL ACCURACY - TRUE. FAIR REPRESENTATION: - FALSE.

COMMENT: Augustine is not talking about religious education. "Small and weak" means Rome itself, not children. This passage of Wheless is grossly misleading to the ordinary reader, even though most of the words are accurate, because of the spin he puts on them, and the gloss added.

4. Wheless, Intro, p.9:

Thus the Church enchains the Reason. The proudest boast today of the Church for its ex-Pagan Saint Augustine, is that: "as soon as a contradiction -- [between his "philosophy" and his religious doctrines] -- arises, he never hesitates to subordinate his philosophy to religion, reason to faith"! (Cath. Encyc. ii, 86.)

Catholic Encyclopedia, "Life of St. Augustine of Hippo" (<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm>)

It is now easy to appreciate at its true value the influence of neo-Platonism upon the mind of the great African Doctor. It would be impossible for anyone who has read the works of St. Augustine to deny the existence of this influence. However, it would be a great exaggeration of this influence to pretend that it at any time sacrificed the Gospel to Plato. The same learned critic thus wisely concludes his study: "So long, therefore, as his philosophy agrees with his religious doctrines, St. Augustine is frankly neo-Platonist; as soon as a contradiction arises, he never hesitates to subordinate his philosophy to religion, reason to faith. He was, first of all, a Christian; the philosophical questions that occupied his mind constantly found themselves more and more relegated to the background" (op. cit., 155). But the method was a dangerous one; in thus seeking harmony between the two doctrines he thought too easily to find Christianity in Plato, or Platonism in the Gospel.

REFERENCE - OK. VERBAL ACCURACY - TRUE. FAIR REPRESENTATION: - FALSE.

COMMENT: The CE author is not discussing faith and reason, but Christianity and Neo-Platonism!

There are a lot more here;

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wh...tro.htmhttp://

Joseph Wheless is hardly a credible source.

Aside from the above his reasoning as regards the various names of God in the O.T. is twisted and incorrect. The various names used show His various aspects.

Jehovah - Smith's Bible Dictionary Online

Jehovah

(I am; the eternal living one ). The Scripture appellation of the supreme Being, usually interpreted as signifying self-derived and permanent existence. The Jews scrupulously avoided every mention of this name of God, substituting in its stead one or other of the words with whose proper vowel-points it may happen to be written. This custom, which had its origin in reverence, was founded upon an erroneous rendering of ( Leviticus 24:16 ) from which it was inferred that the mere utterance of the name constituted a capital offence. According to Jewish tradition, it was pronounced but once a year, by the high priest on the day of atonement when he entered the holy of holies; but on this point there is some doubt. When Moses received his commission to be the deliverer of Israel, the Almighty, who appeared in the burning bush, communicated to him the name which he should give as the credentials of his mission: "And God said unto Moses, "I AM THAT I AM (ehyea asher ehyeh ); and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." That this passage is intended to indicate the etymology of Jehovah, as understood by the Hebrews, no one has ventured to doubt.

Jehovah-jireh

(Jehovah will see or provide ), the name given by Abraham to the place on which he had been commanded to offer Isaac, to commemorate the interposition of the angel of Jehovah, who appeared to prevent the sacrifice, ( Genesis 22:14 ) and provided another victim.

Jehovah-nissi

(Jehovah my banner ), the name given by Moses to the altar which he built in commemoration of the discomfiture of the Amalekites. ( Exodus 17:15 )

God

Summary of the O.T. revelation of Deity: God is revealed in the O.T. (1) through His names, as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Class | English Form | Hebrew Equivalent ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Primary |God | El, Elah, or Elohim (Ge. |LORD | Jehovah (Ge. 2,4, note) |Lord | Adon or Adonai (Ge. 15:2, note) | | Compound (with |Almighty God | El Shaddai (Ge. 17:1, note) El = God) |Most High, or | |most high God | El Elyon (Ge. 14:18, note) |everlasting God | El Olam (Ge. 21:33, note) | | Compound (with |LORD God | Jehovah Elohim (Ge. 2:4, note) Jehovah = Lord)|Lord GOD | Adonai Jehovah (Ge. 15:2, note) |LORD of hosts | Jehovah Sabaoth ( 1 Samuel 1:3, note)

(See Scofield "Genesis 1:1") See Scofield " Genesis 2:4 " See Scofield " Genesis 15:2 " See Scofield " Genesis 17:1 " See Scofield " Genesis 14:18 " See Scofield " Genesis 21:33 " See Scofield " Genesis 2:4 " See Scofield " Genesis 15:2 " See Scofield " 1 Samuel 1:3 "

The trinity is suggested by the three times repeated groups of threes. This is not an arbitrary arrangement, but inheres in the O.T. itself.

This revelation of God by His name is invariably made in connection with some particular need of His people, and there can be no need of man to which these names do not answer as showing that man's true resource is in God. Even human failure and sin but evoke new and fuller revelations of the divine fulnes

Malachi 3 - Scofield Reference Notes Bible Commentary

Al

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Schpankme;

I almost forgot this blatant example of Joseph Wheless' twisting;

When Yahveh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, and announced himself as "the God of thy fathers," he was a total stranger to Moses; Moses did not at all know him, had never heard of him; so that he asked, "What is thy name?" -- so that he could report it to the people back home in Egypt, who had never heard it.

Here is the real and complete event;

Ex. 5:22- 6:3;

5:22 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said , Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people? why is it that thou hast sent me? 23 For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all . (6:1) Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go , and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Exodus 6 "Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt..." KJV - Online Bible Study

So the verse is pulled out of context, mis-quoted, and the interpretation is wrong. Moses knew exactly who he was talking to. God said he was the same God who talked to the patriarchs;He simply said this was a name of His different than the one he used with the patriarchs but He was the same God.

Al

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Schpankme;

Hey Al, how many revisions do you think the Aboriginals created to describe their history and cave art?

I don't know, I doubt if anyone else does, and I don't think it really matters;

Europeans brought with them Christian missionaries. In 1821 the Wesleyan Missionary Society established the first missionary presence among the aborigines. From this basis the missionary presence spread throughout the whole continent so that by the middle of the 19th century there were church settlements virtually throughout Australia. In spite of some resistance to missionary teaching, evangelical Christianity was widely accepted among the aborigines. Today over two thirds of Australian aborigines would identify themselves as Christian.

Australian Aboriginal Religion

Al

[Schpankme]

When Yahveh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, and announced himself as "the God of thy fathers," he was a total stranger to Moses; Moses did not at all know him, had never heard of him; so that he asked, "What is thy name?" -- so that he could report it to the people back home in Egypt, who had never heard it.

Here is the real and complete event; Ex. 5:22- 6:3;

Exodus 6 "Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt..." KJV - Online Bible Study

So the verse is pulled out of context, mis-quoted, and the interpretation is wrong. Moses knew exactly who he was talking to. God said he was the same God who talked to the patriarchs;

He simply said this was a name of His different than the one he used with the patriarchs but He was the same God.

Hey AL,

Notice how you can never get it right; the reference from your own VERSION of KJV is EXODUS 3:13-15.
And I love that your god likes to name change (alias anyone). Pay attention AL, there will be much more to follow:

13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel,
and shall say unto them,
The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you;
and they shall say to me,
What is his name?
what shall I say unto them?

14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:
and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I AM hath sent me unto you.

15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,

the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you:

this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations

Hey Al, why did you try and misdirect everyone to Exodus 5 & 6 when the statements were made in EX. 3 ?

Clearly Moses had no idea what his name was; and it really wouldn't have matter as your god changed his name just for Moses.

Schpankme

"I hear the prisons are full of Christians, maybe they should seek a different religion"

[Schpankme]

Europeans brought with them Christian missionaries

A CURIOUS MUDDLING

The most curious feature of this fable of the burning bush, betraying the utter childish-mindedness of the inspired historian, is the muddled use he makes of the divine name of his new-found deity.

It is in Exodus 3:13 that Moses asks the strange new God:

“What is thy name?”

and in reply “Elohim said unto Moses:

I Am that I Am”;

and he said, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel:

I Am has sent me unto you” (Ex. 3:14).

It is not until Moses returns from his first trip to the elders and the Pharaoh that the God is made to make the pretended first “revelation” of his “ineffable name”, Yahveh. (Ex. 4:2, 3)


In Exodus 1 and 2, and up to 3:6, the deity is spoken of as Elohim, ha-Elohim (gods, the-gods).

Then in verse 7 it is Yahveh who told Moses about his patriarchal covenant, and ordered him to bring his people out of Egypt.

Then, after telling Moses that he is “I Am” (Ex. 3:14), straightway “Elohim said unto Moses:

Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel:

Yahveh, the God of your fathers .... has sent me unto you:

this [Yahveh] is my name forever” (Ex. 3:15)

Thus anticipating by three chapters the first revelation of his name Yahveh (Ex. 4:3).

And the God again says:

“Go, and assemble the elders of Israel, and say unto them:

Yahveh, elohe of your fathers, has appeared unto me, the elohe of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Ex. 3:16).

Also “thou and the elders of Israel shall come unto the king of Egypt, and you shall say unto him, Yahveh, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us; and now, let us go, we pray thee, a journey of three days into the wilderness, and let us sacrifice to Yahveh our God” (Ex. 3:18).

However, Yahveh did not say “the God of the Hebrews”; for there were no Hebrews at that epoch.

Moses replied that they would not believe or hearken unto him, “for they will say, Yahveh has not appeared unto thee” (Ex. 4:1); a curious telepathic knowledge of a name they had never heard.

Some dozen times the name Yahveh is again used in this chapter; and in verse 10 Moses uses both his name and the title of address, “my Lord.” “And Moses said unto Yahveh, adonai [my Lord]”; and Yahveh replied:

“Am I not Yahveh?” (Ex. 4:12); “and he [Moses] said, Adonai [’O Lord]” (Ex. 4:13) -- “and the anger of Yahveh glowed against Moses” “(Ex. 4:4).

So Moses and Aaron went to the Pharaoh and said:

“Thus bath said Yahveh, elohe Yishrael, Send away my people,” etc. “And Pharaoh said, Who is Yahveh; I know not Yahveh” (Ex. 5:1, 2) and so several times in chapter 5, always the name Yahveh appears -- but always falsely translated “the Lord.”

Then in chapter 6 comes “And Yahveh said unto Moses” (Ex. 6:1); then: “And Elohim said unto Moses, I am Yahveh” (Ex. 6:2); and in verse 3 the novel revelation of the supernal name Yahveh, as if never heard of in Hebrew before; and as never heard of in the false translations before or after.

Exodus 6:3 (King James Version)

3And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Schpankme

"Hey everyone, this is God Almighty; no he's different from the other Pagan gods!"

[Schpankme]

The "Mosaic Revelation" Forgery

When Yahveh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, and announced himself as "the God of thy fathers," he was a total stranger to Moses; Moses did not at all know him, had never heard of him; so that he asked, "What is thy name?" -- so that he could report it to the people back home in Egypt, who had never heard it. After some intermission, the God came directly to the point, and declared -- l quote the exact words -- one of the most notorious falsities in Holy Writ:

"And elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, anoki Yahveh -- I am the Lord!

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of el-shaddai, but by my name Yahvch (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them." (Ex. 6:2, 8)

Here we have the positive averment of the Hebrew God himself to the effect that here, for the first time since the world began, is "revealed" to mankind the "ineffable name" of Yahveh, here first appearing in the Bible translations, and there printed as JEHOVAH in capital letters; for more vivid and awe-inspiring impression. But this is a capital Lie of the Lord, or of his biographer who imputed it to him.

In verse 4 of Genesis 2, the name YAHVEH first appears; "in the day that Yahveh-elohim made the earth and the heavens." Its first recorded use in the mouth of a mystical personage, was when Mother Eve "conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahveh -- the Lord." (Gen. 4:1)

One hundred and fifty-six times the personal name YAHVEH occurs in the Book of Genesis alone; and scores of times in the mouths of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, as any one may read in Genesis, with the assurance that every single time that the title "the Lord" and "the Lord God" appears, it is a false translation by the priests for the Hebrew personal name YAHVEH. Throughout the Hebrew "Scriptures" the Divine Name thousands of times occurs:

"The sacred name occurs in Genesis about 156 times; ... in round numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name." (CE. VIII, 829, 331.)

More exactly, what is called the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, appears in the Old Testament 6823 times as the proper name of God as the God of Israel. As such it serves to distinguish him from the gods of the other nations. Thus was the Hebrew tribal god YAHVEH distinguished from Bel, and Chemosh, and Dagon, and Shamash, and the scores of "gods of the nations"; just as Bill distinguishes its bearer from Tom, Dick, and Harry:

This was precisely the Hebrew usage -- to distinguish one heathen god from another. And this the false translators sought to hide, giving names to all the "other gods," but suppressing a name for the Hebrew deity, who as "the Lord," or "the Lord God," was high and unique, "a god above all gods," -- the one and only true God.

But yet more malicious and evil-intentioned of deception:

6828 times is the name of the Hebrew God concealed by false rendition for the deliberate purpose of forging the whole Hebrew Bible, as translated, into semblance of harmony with the false avowal of Exodus 6:3, that "by my name YAHVEH was I not know unto them."

Search as one may, outside Exodus 6:3, the god-name YAHVEH (Jehovah) is never to be found in the translations in a single instance, except in Psalm 83:18, and Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4.

The false translations thus "make truth to be a liar," the lie of Exodus 6:3 to seem the truth; and a barbarous heathen tribal god among a hundred competitive gods to be the nameless, One Lord God of the Universe.

The Hebrew-Christian One God is a patent Forgery and Myth; a mythical Father-god can have no "only begotten Son"; Jesus Christ is nothing but a fairytale, born in the fancies of the Church Fathers.

With respect to the mythical Hebrew-Christian God or gods, we may safely say, as says Father Justin Martyr apropos of the other mythic Pagan gods:

"And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned." (First Apology, ch. VI; ANF. I, 169)

Schpankme

"Do a little dance, make a little love; get down tonight; get down tonight" -- Lot of Sodom

[ANTIQUER]

The &quot;Mosaic Revelation&quot; Forgery

Hi Schpankme;

From your post #168 and again today at 4:30;

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of el-shaddai, but by my name Yahvch (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them." (Ex. 6:2, 8)

The false translations thus "make truth to be a liar," the lie of Exodus 6:3 to seem the truth; and a barbarous heathen tribal god among a hundred competitive gods to be the nameless, One Lord God of the Universe.

6828 times is the name of the Hebrew God concealed by false rendition for the deliberate purpose of forging the whole Hebrew Bible, as translated, into semblance of harmony with the false avowal of Exodus 6:3, that "by my name YAHVEH was I not know unto them.

No mention of Ex. 3 in there, which is what I was responding to. That (Ex.3) did not appear until your post today at 4:14 p.m. (A CURIOUS MUDDLING), long after my reply at 1:16 a.m.

Pay attention AL, there will be much more to follow:

Apparently you are the one who needs to pay attention. I trust what follows will be an apology, not more of Joseph Wheless' trash.

"Hey everyone, this is God Almighty; no he's different from the other Pagan gods!"

And yet people continue to come to him for salvation and remission of sins.

Europeans brought with them Christian missionaries. In 1821 the Wesleyan Missionary Society established the first missionary presence among the aborigines. From this basis the missionary presence spread throughout the whole continent so that by the middle of the 19th century there were church settlements virtually throughout Australia. In spite of some resistance to missionary teaching, evangelical Christianity was widely accepted among the aborigines. Today over two thirds of Australian aborigines would identify themselves as Christian.

Al

[Schpankme]

Apparently you are the one who needs to pay attention.

And yet people continue to come to him for salvation and remission of sins.

Hey AL, apparently you think closing your eyes and reciting chants, to a enhanced delusions you call GOD(s), represents salvation; and when your told the BIBLE (religion) - which ever version you might be reading this year, is a fraud, you recite further nonsense from the same book!

Tell us AL, did your Bible and your so called God sanction the murder of WOMEN who could not PROVE they were a VIRGIN on their wedding night?

And AL, you've NEVER answered the questions you simply ignore Deuteronomy 22:20-21

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (King James Version)

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the W-H-O-R-E in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

More Questions for the MEN of God

Judges 21:7-23, Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin, kidnapping - "each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh"

Tell us also about the thing you call the Bible; and the twisted things about the Chosen people looking for VIRGINS to marry and or to kidnap; and/or to kill those NOT a VIRGIN by the word of GOD.

If you had a son would you instruct him to look for a VIRGIN to marry?

If you had a daughter would you instruct her to marry a VIRGIN?

How would you instruct these Children to identify the Virgin from the non-Virgin?

Tell us about incest; do you think Lot of Sodom was drunk and had SEX with his Daughters: (Genesis 19)

Did each of Lot's daughters give birth to sons, who become the ancestors of the "accursed" Moabites and Ammonites?

Do we allow that today? What do we do with perverts in this day and age AL?

Do you think Lot was a redneck; do you think he went to family reunions to find a spouse?

Do you worship the BIBLE; even the one that has the story about Lot and the incest committed against his TWO DAUGHTERS?

Do you let children read your Bible?

Do you read your bible to children?

Do you take your Bible to strangers and tell them "It's the Word of God" ?

Tell us AL, what part of the King James Version of the Bible disgusts you:

Would it be the fact that King James was a confirmed Bisexual and not the Chosen of GOD?

How many Mentally Disturbing versus of your Bible must you read before you dismiss them as a means by which you live your life and teach others to live their life? Lets read (1 Samuel 18:25-27), Forced marriage and the gathering of Foreskins:

"And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines...And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife."

Here your GOD demands 100-foreskins from dead soldiers.

Would it be that your BIBLE was translated and rewritten dozens of times from the Latin and Greek original versions, and that your version was completed in 1611 by a King James I who demanded it's reproduction as away to separate himself from the Catholics; as he intended to introduce divorce into his perverted book?

How many translation errors would it take to make you question the truthfulness of the Bible?

How many outrageous, repugnant stories from the very pages of your Bible would it take to make you question it's authenticity?

Does your beliefs, in your Bible, cause you to make decisions that impact others?

Hey AL, I'm going to tell you how your going to respond; your going to tell me I'm wrong, or he's wrong, or their wrong, and then you'll cut & pate some meaningless dribble and forget it ever happened.

Schpankme

“To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche

[Schpankme]

And yet people continue to come to him for salvation and remission of sins.

THE FEARFUL AND WONDERFUL "PLAGUES OF EGYPT"

Almost skeptical wonder is caused, in these modern times, by the series of inspired narratives of the famous plagues of Egypt. One is astonished at the preliminary miracle, the transformation of Aaron’s rod into a snake and back again, which Yahveh wrought in order to prove to Pharaoh that Yahveh was indeed the Lord.

But the Pharaoh (what was his name) was not taken aback by this at all, for at his call his sorcerers and magicians turned their rods into snakes (Ex. 7:10-12), and honors thus far were even, although it is true that Aaron’s rod swallowed up all the rods of the other conjurers.

The next wonder recorded is Aaron’s stretching out his rod that had been a snake but was now a rod full of other rods that had been snakes and causing every drop of water in all Egypt to turn into blood. But the Pharaoh’s heathen enchanters again did the very, same miracle (Ex. 7:19-22).

The principal marvel of this conjurer’s miracle, it would seem to a detached observer, is that they could perform this second trick at all, as all the water in the kingdom, including that of the river Nile and that in every pool and vessel in the land, was already pure blood by the miracle of Aaron. The sacred text does not pause to explain this.

The same curious phenomenon occurs with respect to the third plague, Aaron’s conjuring up frogs out of the waters, which were not waters but blood. The frogs came “and covered the land of Egypt,” and filled the river, the land, and the houses of Egypt.

When it is straightway recorded that “the magicians did so with their enchantments” (Ex. 8:5-7), one can only wonder where those enchanters’ frogs came from, and what they covered, and how, seeing that Egypt was already full of frogs.

At all events, honors were again even between Aaron and the enchanters. And the smell that they produced between them was something awful. (Ex. 8:14)

Like miracles on the part of Yahveh and Aaron were performed in the plagues of the lice (Ex. 8:17, 18) and of the flies (Ex. 8:24), to the utter suffering of the Egyptian people, but all the glory this time was Yahveh’s and Aaron’s, as this was more sorcery than the Egyptian magicians had at their command on such short notice.

So the enchanters and magicians all dropped out of the contest and left the field undisputed to Yahveh’s and Aaron’s plagueful miracles. This was just as well, for a few days afterwards they all got boils and blains (Ex. 9:11), and could not have worked their magic to advantage.

A plague of very remarkable consequences is next recorded in the inspired story. The Lord God of the Hebrews turned his attention to afflicting the dumb animal kingdom, which seemingly had little or nothing to do with the controversy between the King of Heaven and the Pharaoh of Egypt.

The God sent a “very grievous murrain” on the Egyptian cattle of every kind, “and all the cattle of Egypt died” (Ex. 9:6);

Think of it! in all Egypt, horses, asses, cows, oxen, sheep, camels, except those of the holy Israelites, all killed! Then, lo! no sooner had all the animals in the kingdom died, than the Lord Yahveh sent a plague of boils and blains “upon man and upon beast,” including the Egyptian magicians (Ex. 9:10, 11) whose conjuring had been out-done by the miracles of Aaron.

As the beasts were already all dead of the murrain (Ex. 4:6), it may be wondered what was the point sending boils and blains upon them.

But the very next plague showed that an unrecorded miracle must have intervened overnight, for all the dead animals are recorded as come to life.

The proof of this unrecorded miracle is clear and logical; for Moses announced, after all the animals had died of the murrain (Ex. 9:6) and then had been infested with boils and blains (9:9), that on the next day he would bring on a “very grievous hail” (9:8); and he considerately, this time, gave ample notice and chance of escape, and warned the Egyptians to gather up their cattle at once and get them under cover; for upon every man and beast which was left out in the open the hail should come down, and they should die; and some of the cattle were herded in, and some were left out in the fields. (9:19-21)

So those cattle killed of the murrain must have been resurrected overnight, or there would have been none alive to be herded in or left out to be killed again.

The hail came as scheduled, mingled with fire, and smote man and beast and every herb of the field, and broke every tree of the field, and destroyed Egypt. (9:24, 25)

Some may think this a good deal like poaching on the covenant of the RAINBOW, whereby Yahveh had promised no general destruction again by rain; but hail is rain frozen hard, and Egypt was not all the world; so there was a reasonable degree of difference. And when the Pharaoh saw the wrack and ruin of the hail, he said:

“Yahveh is righteous” (Ex. 4:27), as he might not have said if he had seen the Flood -- another difference.

The plague of the locusts comes next in the sacred text; terrible swarms of these scourges blew up on the evil-laden east wind, so “that one cannot be able to see the earth” (Ex. 10:5), and “covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened” (Ex. 10:15); and “they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left” (Ex. 10:15).

As every herb and tree in all Egypt had been already destroyed by the hail (Ex. 9:25), the locusts must have had pretty poor picking.

One is puzzled by the famous plague of Egyptian darkness which Yahveh next in his providence sent upon the doomed land -- “even darkness which may be felt” (Ex. 10:21).

So dark it was for three whole days that it was as if they were nights, only much more so, for so thick was the darkness that lights could not be seen, except by the Chosen, who had light in their dwellings and could see as well as ever.

To all human reasoning, this would seem to have been an excellent opportunity for the Chosen to have taken leave under cover of the darkness; and this would have rendered unnecessary the fearful massacre of the first-born to soften Pharaoh’s heart so often hardened by Yahveh to prevent him from letting the people go.

This fatal climax of plagues is indeed terrible to contemplate. The angel of Yahveh, God of heaven, swept through the land of Egypt with a flaming sword dripping human and animal blood, and slaughtered the first-born of every family of Egypt, from the palace of the Pharaoh to the very prisons. (Ex. 12:29)

And what is more curious, the angel slaughtered also the first-born of all cattle, although the cattle were already dead of the murrain (9:6),
of the boils and blains (9:10), and of the hail (9:19-25).
But wonders were as plentiful as black-berries in those days.

One may well wonder why it was that after each terrible plague the God of the Hebrews “hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” even when he was very eager to let the people go; and why this God, “long-suffering and plenteous in mercy,” did not use his influence to soften the Pharaoh’s heart to let the children go in peace and in a hurry; for several times, after a peculiarly harrowing plague, the Pharaoh urged Moses and Aaron:

“Go, and serve your God”; but every time the God said; “I have hardened his heart, that I might shew these my signs before him.”

After the plague of darkness and a stormy passage between Pharaoh and Moses and Aaron (Ex. 10:24-29) the latter doughty plague-invokers left the presence of the Pharaoh with a direful threat of what was to come (Ex. 11), and went forth with the exodus of the Chosen from blood-stricken Egypt.

Schpankme

"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." -- George Carlin

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Schpankme;

I trust what follows will be an apology, not more of Joseph Wheless' trash.

Well, I got more trash, still waiting on the apology.

Hey AL, apparently you think closing your eyes and reciting chants

Wrong again; I don't chant.

Lets read (1 Samuel 18:25-27), Forced marriage and the gathering of Foreskins:

"And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines...And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife."

Here your GOD demands 100-foreskins from dead soldiers.

That's your (or somebody's) version, now let's see the real one;

20 And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. 21 And Saul said , I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain. 22 And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say , Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law . 23 And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said , Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law , seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed ? 24 And the servants of Saul told him, saying , On this manner spake David. 25 And Saul said , Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies . But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. 26 And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law : and the days were not expired . 27 Wherefore David arose and went , he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law . And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife. 28 And Saul saw and knew that the LORD was with David, and that Michal Saul's daughter loved him. 29 And Saul was yet the more afraid of David; and Saul became David's enemy continually.

So God did not demand the foreskins, Saul did as a way to get David killed. Also, Michal was not forced, she loved David. So, wrong again.

And AL, you've NEVER answered the questions you simply ignore Deuteronomy 22:20-21

I have answered this at least twice. If you don't care to read my reply or choose to ignore it that's your choice. Wrong again.

As I said before I am through discussing this subject as you don't want an answer or explanation, only to Bible bash.

you'll cut & pate some meaningless dribble

I assume you mean "paste" not "pate".
And you don't? I at least give you the link I quote from, and from now on I will not reply to anything you post unless you do likewise including but not limited to this:THE FEARFUL AND WONDERFUL "PLAGUES OF EGYPT".

Would it be the fact that King James was a confirmed Bisexual and not the Chosen of GOD?

King James did not write it, only authorized the committee that compiled it from Tyndale's work and a few other sources. God will use whoever he wishes to accomplish his purpose.

Tell us AL, what part of the King James Version of the Bible disgusts you:

None of it. It is the trash written by the sources you choose to use that is disgusting due to it's twisted statements/interpretations as in the above I Samuel and the examples I gave you previously.

And yet people continue to come to him for salvation and remission of sins.

Have you ever read any version of all those bibles you claim to have access to? Or do you just rely on the opinions of others who want to bash it for whatever reason? Try sitting down and reading just the New Testament with an open mind, as you would read a book. You might be surprised by what you find.
If you don't like that idea try "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. It was on the best seller list for weeks. It might give you a different perspective on Christianity and the Bible.

Have a nice weekend,

Al

[Schpankme]

I at least give you the link I quote from

from now on I will not reply

to anything you post unless you do likewise

Come on AL, YOUR BIBLE is the source (verse by verse).

You have IGNORED Dozens of Verses; you dance around subjects that your Bible teaches. As an example the gathering of the Foreskin from dead soldiers; or the brutalization of women; or rape and kidnapping as the favors of GOD for the Chosen. Of course you go to great lengths to play down the OLD Testament and hurry along to the NEW and improved Testament.

Just so we have no Confusion and or typos you can whine about; I will use the works of Joseph Wheless (Forgery in Christianity & Is It Gods Word), plus as may be required, the Latin Vulgate, Hebrew (the Old Testament) and Greek (the New Testament).

It won't surprise me AL if your unable to read and write in the Latin, Greek or Hebrew; just like many so called Christians (Χριστός m. Khristós). The most amazing part about worshiping paper is that you need to know the source and can prove authenticity!

Schpankme

"Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done." -- Stowe

[Schpankme]

King James did not write it, only authorized the committee that compiled it from Tyndale's work and a few other sources. God will use whoever he wishes to accomplish his purpose.

The following chapter is taken from Isaac H. Hall, ed., The Revised New Testament and History of Revision, Philadelphia: Hubbard Brothers; Atlanta: C.R. Blackall & Co.; New York: A.L. Bancroft & Co., 1881.

History of the King James Version

When James I. came to the throne of England he found the Established Church in a sadly divided state...In October, 1603, James therefore called a conference, to meet in Hampton Court Palace, in the coming January, "for hearing and for the determining things pretended to be amiss in the Church." So far as the objects chiefly sought were concerned, this Conference was a failure, but there began the movement for the version of the English Bible, now so widely accepted.

Dr. John Reynolds, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. On the second day of the conference, this gentleman, in the course of discussion, suggested to the king, that a new version was exceedingly desirable, because of the many errors in the version then in use. That suggestion led to the action which, after some little delay, inaugurated measures for King James' version.

Arrangements for this version were completed by the appointment of fifty-four learned men, who were also to secure the suggestions of all competent persons, that, as the king put it, "our said translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom." His Majesty's instructions to the translators were these:

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.

4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.

5. The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.

7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.

10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.

12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.

13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

15. By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."

Only forty-seven of the men appointed for this work are known to have engaged in it. These were divided into six companies, two of which met at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. They were presided over severally by the Dean of Westminster and by the two Hebrew Professors of the Universities.

To the first company, at Westminster (ten in number), was assigned the Old Testament as far as 2 Kings; the second company (seven in number) had the Epistles. The first company at Cambridge (numbering eight) had 2 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes; the second company (numbering seven) had the Apocryphal books. To the first Oxford company (seven in number) were assigned the prophetical books, from Isaiah to Malachi; to the second (eight in number) were given the four Gospels, the Acts and the Apocalypse, or Revelation.

COMPLETION OF THE REVISION

Some work upon the revision was, in all probability, begun soon after the appointment of the committees. Vigorous effort was, however, delayed till about 1607, for what reason is unknown.

The expenses of the work were not borne by the king, who pleaded poverty, but by voluntary contributions from bishops and others who had fat livings. The king, however, rewarded the translators by bestowing good livings on them as vacancies occurred, and by ecclesiastical promotion.

The work was given to the public in 1611, in a folio volume printed in black letter, the full title as follows:

"The | HOLY | BIBLE, | Conteyning the Old Testament, | AND THE NEW, | Newly Translated out of the Original | tongues: & with the former Translations | diligently compared and revised by his | Maiesties special Comandement. | Appointed to be read in Churches | Imprinted at London by Robert | Barker, Printer to the Kings | most excellent Maiestie | Anno Dom. 1611."

The same year, the New Testament, in 12mo, was issued, and in 1612, the entire Bible in 8vo, and in Roman type. The Genevan Bible, however, had a firm hold on the popular heart, and it required the lifetime of a generation to displace it.

The title-page speaks of this version as being "with the former translations diligently compared and revised." In their address to the readers, the translators themselves say: "Truly, we never thought, from the beginning ... that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one."

The singular fact has been brought to light within a few years that in the year 1611 there were two distinct folio editions of this Bible published. There are some copies extant where the sheets from the two are combined; and some, where the title-page of 1611 is prefixed to the later editions. The two editions of 1611 had distinctive titles, though it is said that in some cases these were interchanged; one being a wood-cut which had been used before in the earlier Bishops' Bible, and the other an elegant copperplate.

WINNING ITS WAY

King James made great promises concerning his new version. He said at the outset that it "should be ratified by royal authority, and adopted for exclusive use in all the churches." The title-page set forth that the work was by "His Maiesties special Commandement;" also that it is "appointed to be read in churches;" and finally, that it comes from the press of "Robert Barker, printer to the King's most excellent Maiestie." All this parade seems to guarantee some civil force to urge the new version into general use, but so far as can be learned from history, the book was left to win its way upon its merits alone. Indeed it was not until 1661, that the Epistles and the Gospels in the Prayer Book, were changed, the authorized text superseding that of the Bishops' Bible.

Mr. Huxley, whose tendency to superstitious reverence will not be suspected, has said of this version: "It is written in the noblest and purest English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary form." The style used in this version was unique. It was not the English of that day, either spoken or written. Indeed, Mr. Marsh, in his "Lectures on the English Language" asserts, that the dialect used was not at any period "the actual current book language, nor the colloquial speech of the English people."

The fact concerning the style of this version is, that from the earliest effort at English version each succeeding translator improved upon his predecessors, taking his best points continually, so that in the end the chief excellence of each appeared. King James' version, therefore, combines the beautiful and felicitous expression of all who went before it.

As a final testimony to the excellence of the King James' version we may quote from Dr. F. W. Faber, who says: "Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvelous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds against heresy in this country? It lives on the ear, like music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost things rather than words.

It is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness.

Nay, it is worshiped with a positive idolatry, in extenuation of whose grotesque fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads availingly with the man of letters and the scholar. The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of a man are hid beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft and gentle, and pure and penitent and good, speaks to him forever out of his Protestant Bible. It is a sacred thing which doubt has never dimmed and controversy never soiled."

History of the King James Version

Schpankme

“We boast our emancipation from many superstitions; but if we have broken any idols, it is through a transfer of idolatry” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson