Posts by JosephAlward

37

Can Man See God and Live?

by JosephAlward in

the author of the book of john evidently believed that no man has seen god, while the author of exodus tells us that moses had, indeed, seen god.

either john is wrong, or exodus is; either way, the bible is in error on this point.

here is the evidence:.

The author of the book of John evidently believed that no man has seen God, while the author of Exodus tells us that Moses had, indeed, seen God. Either John is wrong, or Exodus is; either way, the Bible is in error on this point. Here is the evidence:

John wrote that no man has "seen" God:

"No man hath seen God at any time
(John 1:18)

Not that any man hath seen the Father,
save he which is of God, he hath seen
the Father. (John 6:46)

No man hath seen God at any time."
(John 1:18)

The author of Exodus says the penalty for looking at God is death: "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20) However, Moses and seventy of the elders of Israel evidently met with God, saw him, and lived to tell about it. Here is the story:

"And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel and worship ye afar off.....Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Anadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone....and upon the nobles of the children of Israel HE LAID NOT HIS HAND." (Exodus 24:1-11)

If the statement that Moses and elders "saw the God" is not enough proof for doubters that Moses and others did, indeed, see God, then there is also the substantiating information that God didn't kill them. Why would the author tell us that God didn't kill them men if it wasn't normal for God to kill those who saw him, but in this special case, God spared the men? Clearly, then, the men SAW god. John said that such a thing never happened, so either John was wrong, or the author of Exodus was. Either way, the Bible is in error.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

13

Proof the Bible Cannot Be Trusted

by JosephAlward in

objective observers know that the bible is packed with errors and inconsistencies.

for example, genesis has light created on the first day, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth.

matthew's genealogy is completely different than luke's.

JosephAlward

In previous posts I've responded to Pomegranate's argument that the writer of Genesis 1:1-13 wanted his readers to know that the "evenings" were in fact periods of "darkness and lies." I have nothing more to add to my argument, so I will turn my attention elsewhere (see other threads).

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

13

Proof the Bible Cannot Be Trusted

by JosephAlward in

objective observers know that the bible is packed with errors and inconsistencies.

for example, genesis has light created on the first day, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth.

matthew's genealogy is completely different than luke's.

JosephAlward

Pomegranate didn't respond to my question, "If God had wanted us to know that each of his days of creation was followed by the rule of Satan during the evening, don’t you think he would have his Bible writers make that clear?"

I'll rephrase the question: If it's true that evil is the greatest threat God's people will face, why didn't God instruct his Bible writer to make it clear that there was evil present in each of the six evenings following the six days of creation? What could be more important than that?
Surely that's more important than, say, the description of the moon, or the plants, or the order of creation of man versus animals? Does it not stretch credulity to the breaking point to imagine that God's writer wanted us to know that evil and lies were ruled the evenings in the first six days, but yet he didn't say so? Why didn't the writer make that clear? Isn't it far more likely that the writer was merely reporting the traditional stories from two different traditions (cultures), one which believed that the earth came before the sun, and the other vice-versa?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

19

Another Bible Error: An Eye for and Eye

by JosephAlward in

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

" (deuteronomy 19:20-22).

however, according to the author of the book of matthew, not only did jesus not believe in fighting back against one's enemies, he even wanted his disciples to do good (!

JosephAlward

I don't believe Pomegranate has responded to the main point in the question I raised, so I will summarize my argument. Paul said that ALL scripture is useful for teaching: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) One of those teachings is that man should extract and eye for an eye: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:20-22) According to Paul, anyone--and we must assume that includes Jesus--will find this teaching useful. But, look what Matthew says Jesus said:

"I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)

So, the contradiction seems to be this: Jesus couldn't possibly have found the "eye for an eye" Old Testament teaching useful--as Paul said it would be, since Jesus preached the exact opposite. Thus, either Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said, or Paul was wrong about ALL scripture being useful. Either way, the Bible is in error. If not, why not?

On a separate matter: Pomegranate notes that Galatians speaks of love: "The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14) How can this command be reconciled by the Lord's command to Samuel to slay INFANTS? "This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants"
(1 Samuel 15:1-3)

Surely the infants were especially deserving of neighborly love, wouldn't you think? According to Matthew, Jesus taught that one's enemies were to be loved, but Samuel wrote that the Lord wanted men to kill babies. One thing seems to be certain: Either Samuel was wrong (I hope so) about what the Lord wanted, or Matthew was wrong about what the son of God believed. Either way, the Bible is in error.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

19

Another Bible Error: An Eye for and Eye

by JosephAlward in

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

" (deuteronomy 19:20-22).

however, according to the author of the book of matthew, not only did jesus not believe in fighting back against one's enemies, he even wanted his disciples to do good (!

JosephAlward

Joseph Alward:

Scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:20-22)

However, according to the author of the book of Matthew, not only did Jesus not believe in fighting back against one's enemies, he even wanted his disciples to do good (!) to the ones who hurt them:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)...Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)

How can both of these teachings be true at the same time? For a those who would argue that the rules laid down by God in the Old Testament became invalid in New Testament times, let us not forget that Paul said that ALL scripture is useful for teaching:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

If Paul had known what Matthew would write, would he have agreed that Jesus found the Old Testament teaching of an eye for and eye "useful"? Of course not. Thus, either Paul was wrong about all scripture being God-breathed and useful, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said. Either way, the Bible is in error
===========
Pomegranate

Foolish man. Without knowing the law of the OT (part of the all scripture inspired and beneficial for teaching), Paul could not teach what law in fact they were released from, could he? No he couldn't
============
Joseph Alward:

Let me repeat what Paul said, then I'll comment:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

If you believe that the Bible writers--Paul included--were God inspired to write God's truth, then how do you explain why Paul would say that ALL of scripture is useful for teaching if--according to you--he didn't even KNOW all of scripture? How could God allow him to comment on a topic about which his knowledge is incomplete--according to you?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

13

Proof the Bible Cannot Be Trusted

by JosephAlward in

objective observers know that the bible is packed with errors and inconsistencies.

for example, genesis has light created on the first day, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth.

matthew's genealogy is completely different than luke's.

JosephAlward

Pomegranate:

"Evening and morning are depicting Satan covering over truth with the darkness of evil and lies and God ploughing through the darkness of lies with light of good and truth."
===========
Joseph Alward:

The Old Testament writers used the word "evening" 111 other times outside of the creation story, and there's zero evidence that the authors meant for us to interpret any of these "evenings" as periods of "darkness and lies." On what basis do you conclude that "evening" meant to the Bible writers then anything more or less than what it means to us now? If God had wanted us to know that each of his days of creation was followed by the rule of Satan during the evening, don’t you think he would have his Bible writers make that clear?

The evidence (not present here) shows that the Genesis writers patched together stories about creation and the flood from at least two other traditions, or cultures. One culture believed that the earth was created first, then the sun, while the other believed it happened in the opposite order; one culture believed that Noah brought seven of each animal on board the ark, while the other believed it was two.

The Bible was written by men who knew that not all of the other contributors could be trusted to have a correct understanding of God, so they cautioned us not to blindly accept what we read in the Bible as truthful. They told us to use our minds to decide for ourselves what made sense, and to disregard that which doesn't make sense. This is what they said:

"Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Pomegranate, if you believe that there's a god which will punish you--perhaps even send you to the lake of fire for eternity--if you worship a falsely, then perhaps you may wish to hold your interpretations up to the test of common sense, lest you worship false teachings and therefore a false god.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

19

Another Bible Error: An Eye for and Eye

by JosephAlward in

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

" (deuteronomy 19:20-22).

however, according to the author of the book of matthew, not only did jesus not believe in fighting back against one's enemies, he even wanted his disciples to do good (!

JosephAlward

Scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:20-22)

However, according to the author of the book of Matthew, not only did Jesus not believe in fighting back against one's enemies, he even wanted his disciples to do good (!) to the ones who hurt them:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)...Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)

How can both of these teachings be true at the same time? For a those who would argue that the rules laid down by God in the Old Testament became invalid in New Testament times, let us not forget that Paul said that ALL scripture is useful for teaching:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

If Paul had known what Matthew would write, would he have agreed that Jesus found the Old Testament teaching of an eye for and eye "useful"? Of course not. Thus, either Paul was wrong about all scripture being God-breathed and useful, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said. Either way, the Bible is in error.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

13

Proof the Bible Cannot Be Trusted

by JosephAlward in

objective observers know that the bible is packed with errors and inconsistencies.

for example, genesis has light created on the first day, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth.

matthew's genealogy is completely different than luke's.

JosephAlward

The notion that the "light" spoken of in Genesis 1:1-13 is spiritual, not physical, is unsupportable. There's no way that a spiritual light could cause "evenings" and "mornings." As we all know, an evening begins at sunset when the earth rotates away from the sun and the sun appears to fall below the horizon, and vice versa for mornings. The editor of Genesis was recording two separate traditions about the creation; in Genesis 1:1-13 he reports the tradition of those who believed the sun came first, then the earth, while in Genesis 1:14-17 he describes the beliefs of those who think the earth came first, then the sun. These are completely contradictory descriptions, but this was of no concern to the editor; just as a child faithfully might recount the grandmother's story of a happy event, so will she report a perhaps a somewhat contradictory account by the grandfather's, out of respect and love for both.

There are an almost uncountable number of contradictions in the Bible, and they cannot be argued away.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

13

Proof the Bible Cannot Be Trusted

by JosephAlward in

objective observers know that the bible is packed with errors and inconsistencies.

for example, genesis has light created on the first day, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth.

matthew's genealogy is completely different than luke's.

JosephAlward

Objective observers know that the Bible is packed with errors and inconsistencies. For example, Genesis has light created on the first day, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth. Matthew's genealogy is completely different than Luke's. Matthew thought that "Jeremy" spoke of the Judas'betrayal of thirty pieces of silver, and the use of this money to buy the potter's field, but there's no story like that in Jeremiah; Matthew seemed to have mixed up two or more completely unrelated stories having to do with an uncle's field in one place, and seventeen pieces of silver in another. The Bible says that Judas hanged himself in one place, but in another it says that he fell and his sides split open. Matthew thought that Jesus rode into Jerusalem with a donkey and an ass, but that's because he misunderstood Zechariah. The list of biblical problems is almost without end. Interested readers will find about fifty articles dealing with different examples of Bible error at http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

4

Jesus Fact or Fiction....Debate Transcript

by ISP in

thought it might be interesting to post the link for this......... .

> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/.

isp

JosephAlward

This is my first post to this forum. I maintain a website of articles and research resources at http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

I've written a few dozen articles relating to inerrancy, and am particularly interested the origin of the gospel stories. My considered opinion is that the historical Jesus did not exist. To Paul, Christ was spiritual, not physical. The author or authors of Mark created a fictional character based on events in the lives of Elija, Moses, and especially, David. Matthew and Luke, writing after Mark, adapted Mark's stories to suit their needs.

As for the existence of a personal, caring god: I'm aware of no evidence to suggest the existence of such a thing. The argument that everything must have a cause or creator, and therefore the universe was created succumbs to Occam's Razor when compared to the simpler argument that the universe has always existed, in one form or the other. It's easier to believe that the universe wasn't created or caused than it is to believe that there is a god who wasn't created or caused, and which created the universe.

I believe that the fate awaiting us all is not in the slightest any different than that which awaits all living things, and that the only "purpose" served by man's existence is the propagation of his genes into subsequent generations, or the assistance he gives to others in propagating their genes. Morality? It arises naturally, not from a god, and its development is guided by the same fitness principles which direct man's physical evolution. Those whose genes generally don't give them a predisposition to be kind to their neighbors didn't live long enough to reproduce, and thus those genes are generally in short supply today.

These are just a few of my views; I would welcome any comment.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html