Take the Bible Test

Lillith26

This is a test I borrowed from the WUD website! Your imput is most welcome!

1. How many contradictory creation of man stories are there in Genesis?

2. Did the patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Abraham, pimp his wife/half-sister?

3. Does the Bible god favor one group of people above all others?

4. How many "little children" did the bears kill that the Bible god sent because they teased Elisha about his bald head? Were the bears male or female?

5. According to the Bible, what is God's name?

6. Did the Bible god give orders to slaughter women and children?

7. Why did the Bible god in Exodus 11:10 (among other places), the blasphemous Passover horror story, "harden Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land" and then in Exodus 12:29 the Bible god killed the first born of everyone, even of the animals, to punish Pharaoh for not doing what the Bible god allegedly made impossible for him to do?

8. When the Bible god wanted to kill Moses, what did Moses' wife throw at the Bible god's feet that made him change his mind?

9. Why does Joshua 10:12-14 say the Bible god made the sun stand still to allow the Jews more time to slaughter their neighbors when in reality the sun is stationary in relation to the earth?

10. Why is II Kings 19 almost identical with Isaiah 37 and why is II Chronicles 36:22 identical to Ezra 1:1 through most of 1:3?

11. Who said they did not come to bring peace, but a sword?

12. Was Jesus supposed to return to earth during the lifetime of some of his followers?

13. Who was critical of the Jews for not following their Biblical teachings to kill their disobedient children?

14. Who said their followers must hate their families?

Answers 1. 2. Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:5-7

2. Yes. Once when she was younger and once when she was in her 90's! Genesis 12:10-16 and Genesis 20:1-2 (Even though in both cases the men Sarah was handed over to did not know she was married, the Bible god was upset with them and not the pimp Abraham!)

3. Yes, the Jews. Deuteronomy 7:6

4. 42 The protestant versions of this Biblical nonsense and horror story say they were "she-bears" ( 2 Kings 2:23-24 ) but the Catholic version of the Bible simply says they were bears.

5. Jealous! Exodus 34:14 6. Yes, many times the Bible claims he ordered the Hebrews to slaughter women and children as in Numbers 31:7-18 , 1 Samuel 15:2-3 among many other places!

7. No reason.

8. The fresh foreskin of the infant son. Exodus 4:24-26

9. Joshua 10:12-14 demonstrates the raw ignorance of the ancient Jews who wrote the Bible.

10. Bad editing! II Kings 19 II Chronicles 36:23

11. The Christian's king of peace, Jesus. Matthew 10:34

12. Yes. Of course, he's already about 2,000 years too late! Matthew 16:28

13. Jesus. Mark 7:9-10

14. Jesus. Luke 14:26

Nosferatu

For someone who forgot most of this crap, I'm surpirsed how well I did, and that I got the foreskin one right.

bob1999

" There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

" 12. Yes. Of course, he's already about 2,000 years too late!"

No. Christ came into his kingdom in 70 AD. There were some of those still alive at that time.

Let me ask a question. What age were the disciples living in when they ask about the "end of the age"?

Answer, the Jewish age. The Jewish age did not end until the distruction of the temple in 70 AD. Please read Hebrews 8:13

"What is BECOMING obsolete........READY to vanish away"

It does not say that the old was obsolete. It does not say that the old had VANISH AWAY, yet. But it was about to.

In Matthew 23 Christ is telling the scribes and Pharisees that they were hypocrites, etc...

He said that there would be a price to pay and that "....all this will come upon this GENERATION"

Skip forward to Matthew 24. Guess what? He's talking about the same generation.

The question asked by the disciples at the beginning of Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the temple and the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Both events happened at the same time. 70 AD

Peace

BabaYaga

Nosferatu said:

I'm surpirsed how well I did, and that I got the foreskin one right.

That is hilarious, I got the foreskin one right, too! That one is rather difficult to erase from one's mind, don't you think?

Farkel

:The fresh foreskin of the infant son

Thank God it was FRESH! Stale ones are probably pretty skanky.

Farkel

glenster

I've got to go to bed, but I looked up a few.

3. No. Rom.10:12, others

7. Exodus 10:1-2.

11.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword

14. See miseo definition c.
http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0001315

Lillith26

Glenster, I thought I put this Test on here just to see if it needed "Tweeking a little", thankyou for your response, I have thought about the answers you gave and heres some further explaination for you to concider.

3. at deuteronomy 7:7-9 it explains that yhwh made an oath to the jews forfathers and said he would keep it with them also- so somewhere between then and the times of romans 10:12, god "changed" his mind/nature ???

7. Exodus 10:1-2 paints the perfect picture of a "loving father" doesnt it! Make it impossible for Pharaoh to 'repent' and maybe spare the lives of thousands of innocent men, woman and children because I point to prove about how superior I am! - let us together see how the book of Romans asks us to 'handle' our enemies turn to 12:17-21- does the god in exodus who is 'unchanging in nature' follow his own advice in Egypt?????? instead of loving them and feeding them he kills them and starts plagues! Hmmmn........

will get around to looking the others up later- thankyou again for your response- I think maybe some re-wording of the Questions is required.

Lillith26

Thankyou Bob- I didn't write this test or the answers as I said to Glen, I put it on here to see if it needed tweeking/fixing up. You have made some great points and you are correct in your response! I apreaciate people who take the time to concider the question before they answer.

Baba & Farkel- the whole forskin thing is just bit too gross and painfull to forget in a hurry- that poor baby.

glenster

3. There are different ideas for Rom.11, but the faithful to be rewarded
can be Jews or Gentiles since the crucifixion, Acts 10, etc., which is
considered a growing development in God's course for followers and not a
change in His basic nature.

7. The concept of God's nature isn't of a loving father in the sense of an
all-beneficicent God who has people live in heavenly circumstances forever.
It would make a good-sounding concept, but nobody could believe it because it
couldn't be reconciled with what goes on in the world.

There's the love Job finds in getting a shot at life and what good there is
in life, or the chance for some to enter eternity with God with faith in the
crucifixion. By God's prerogative, He wouldn't have to give people any life
or quality of life, so any He gives is a plus. The deaths He's caused are fair
game, although remember when giving any examples like that, OT battles, etc.,
a bigger concern is that if He hadn't caused them to happen, He would have had
them die later, anyway, because He has everyone die. You could not like it or
consider it evil from the human point of view of what we'd prefer, but it's
just on the level of God's prerogative. All you can do toward finding a
loving father is find it in the mix like Job did.

Pharoah was pretty hard-hearted in the first place, and he and his people
weren't real nice about Moses' people. Some interpret Pharoah, against the
God of Moses and ruthless about his people, having a hardening of the heart
that came from within when confronted with Moses saying his God demanded that
Pharoah let Moses' people go. It might not be a perfect comparison, but it
reminds me of how Hitler and his people would react to a demand like that
about the Jews and not wanting to change even as the Allies approached Berlin.
But it took the Allies to make a change.

Romans 12:17-21 at the least discourages responding exactly in kind whenever
treated badly (slander when slandered, be bigoted to bigots, etc.). It's part
of the bigger context of whether or not Christians can act in defense, and, if
so, in the government or not. The case can be made that letting organized
crime and leaders like Hitler flourish would cause a lot more evil in the
world.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id20.html

13. See the above, but one thing to add to that is that it's supposed to
have been a theocracy, led, even miraculously, by God, which would make the
standard of expectations go up in a tougher tribal world than 2009 USA. They
also made a distinction between accidental and deliberate sin, so the law
would indicate a son who was old enough to know better being enemy natured
about parents who were held to abide by higher standards, too.

Take the Bible Test

Share this