Rapture - 23rd September 2015

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It was you who mentioned the "brother", not me. You are in my opinion being dishonest. I have accused you of this: "when you found out I was better informed, and only then, you switched to the 'duplication' explanation." That is, you (not I) first used the "brother" explanation which I now know you don't believe, and didn't believe at the time when you (not I) proposed it.

I am accusing you - so defend yourself.

You may also wish now to tell me how you reconcile the two versions of the David Census, one ordered by God, and one by Satan. Do you say that these are two separate events?

I see, I'm sorry if I got the impression from your posts here and elsewhere that you are not entirely uneducated on the Bible. I apologize if I offended you by thinking you are smarter than the average bear here and someone I could have a conversation with. It was not meant to be offensive to you and I was/am not playing at words with you. If any dishonesty was implied I certainly never meant for it to be. I will of course reference everything I say in advance from this point on to avoid any confusion.

I'll go over my view of Goliath for you. Maybe it will help you understand it along your quest to get to the bottom of the Goliath issue and put an end to the "name game" that assigns only one individual to specific name across history. (I was of the same opinion too at one point)

Link:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...details-about-the-bibles-bad-guy-philistines/

From the article:

"Diggers at Gath have also found shards preserving names similar to Goliath – an Indo-European name, not a Semitic one of the kind that would have been used by the local Canaanites or Israelites. These finds show the Philistines indeed used such names and suggest that this detail, too, might be drawn from an accurate picture of their society."

Now, why is this important? Because it shows the name "Goliath" and similar names to it were used at that time. So, the "name game" theory doesn't work to pin down David's Goliath as the same guy Elhanan killed. Easy.

OK, so let's look at it another way. Some scholars view David and Elhanan as the same person. This doesn't make sense to me either and so I disagree. Elhanan was the son of Jair, clearly stated. As is it stated David was the son of Jesse. Two different people. So this view is assigning 1 person with 2 names. There's no need for that either.

Now, 1 Samuel 17 tells about Goliath and that he was a giant of a man. (I won't quote it) But it does not say who his father was. David (who was still a young boy at this time) killed Goliath with a stone and cut off his head. Exit Goliath from the living. Notes: David is a boy, Goliath is dead.

Now, there is a problem when one jumps to 2 Samuel 21:15-22 if we view as only one name can be attributed to one person forever.

"15 Once again there was a battle between the Philistines and Israel. David went down with his men to fight against the Philistines, and he became exhausted. 16 And Ishbi-Benob, one of the descendants of Rapha, whose bronze spearhead weighed three hundred shekels and who was armed with a new [sword], said he would kill David. 17 But Abishai son of Zeruiah came to David's rescue; he struck the Philistine down and killed him. Then David's men swore to him, saying, "Never again will you go out with us to battle, so that the lamp of Israel will not be extinguished." 18 In the course of time, there was another battle with the Philistines, at Gob. At that time Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Saph, one of the descendants of Rapha. 19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. 20 In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot--twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. 21 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimeah, David's brother, killed him. 22 These four were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men."

At this point, David is much older now (not a boy anymore) and it mentions Elhanan killing "Goliath" but also this time we are told this man Goliath was a descendant of Rapha. Yet in 1 Ch 20:4-8 we have Elhanan slaying Lahmi the brother of Goliath.

"4 And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, that was of the children of the giant: and they were subdued . 5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. 6 And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant. 7 But when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David's brother slew him. 8 These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants"

Which is incorrect according to the original text as you already know.
Notes: David is older now and gets tired in battle. Elhanan slew Goliath a descendant of Rapha.

So, some may assume that David took credit for Elhanan's deed. But I don't think he did, as the giant David slew as a boy was long dead and gone by this time. David would likely never have become king had he not killed Goliath as a boy. So the problem is there is no problem with this view. It doesn't require any two characters to become one, it only requires that one understands more than one person can have the same name. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Here's another example of "that method" in action. We can infer that the David and Goliath story is phoney because it is stuck into the text without due or sufficient regard to the material already supplied by earlier sources. According to these, how did Saul and David first come into contact? Then a later hand sticks this in, of Saul first meeting David following David's feat of arms.

First meeting:
1 Samuel 16:20
"20Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread and a jug of wine and a young goat, and sent them to Saul by David his son."


Why David was not at Saul's house when the Philistines arrived:
1 Samuel 17:15

"15 but David went back and forth from Saul to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem."

After the defeat of Goliath Saul questions David about his father:
So Saul knew David prior to the killing of Goliath. When Saul asks David "Whose son are you young man?" in 1 Samuel 17:58

Fact is since Saul already knew who David was, the question "Whose son are you young man?" could only be a response to the many talents of this young man. Since he already knew who David's father was, he was having difficulty accepting that someone from such meager beginnings could be so talented.

I see your game now. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I think you may be confused about the various meanings of "apologist". The one evidently invoked here is given in The Free Dictionary as That's a good description of your advocacy of the inerrancy of the Bible.

The problem is you're pointing out errors that don't exist.
Chris B.

 

[Craig B]

I see, I'm sorry if I got the impression from your posts here and elsewhere that you are not entirely uneducated on the Bible. I apologize if I offended you by thinking you are smarter than the average bear here and someone I could have a conversation with. It was not meant to be offensive to you and I was/am not playing at words with you. If any dishonesty was implied I certainly never meant for it to be. I will of course reference everything I say in advance from this point on to avoid any confusion.

Did you believe in the "brother" explanation at the point when you offered it to me? That is what I was asking. I am aware that two people can have the same name. You are simply asserting that there must be two Goliaths because if there was only one it would falsify Biblical inerrancy, of which you are a resolute apologist. Were there two Michals, one with sons, the other not? Were there two Davids, one who met Saul before, one after, the duel with Goliath?

Were there two Censuses, one ordered by God, the other by Satan?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It's perfectly fine but perfectly wrong.


Translation: when you do it; wrong. When I do it; right.

It feels... gamey.

Is there anything in particular you'd like to discuss? I'm not that interesting of a topic. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Did you believe in the "brother" explanation at the point when you offered it to me? That is what I was asking. I am aware that two people can have the same name. You are simply asserting that there must be two Goliaths because if there was only one it would falsify Biblical inerrancy, of which you are a resolute apologist. Were there two Michals, one with sons, the other not? Were there two Davids, one who met Saul before, one after, the duel with Goliath?

Were there two Censuses, one ordered by God, the other by Satan?

No I did not. I asked you if you were talking about Goliath's brother. Believe it or not it's a common subject when talking about Goliath as is the "corrupted text" theory explanation that goes with it. Likely in the skeptics biblical reference playbook.

The meeting of Saul and David I've covered in my previous post you've probably not read yet at the time you made this post. But it seems to me you are looking for problems where none exist.

I've not looked into Saul's daughter. One subject at a time please.
Chris B.

 

[Craig B]

The meeting of Saul and David I've covered in my previous post you've probably not read yet at the time you made this post.

No, I hadn't read your exegesis of the David meets Saul passages when I wrote my last. I have now, and great is the amusement it has given me!

First meeting:

1 Samuel 16:20
"20Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread and a jug of wine and a young goat, and sent them to Saul by David his son."Why David was not at Saul's house when the Philistines arrived:

1 Samuel 17:15
"15 but David went back and forth from Saul to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem."

After the defeat of Goliath Saul questions David about his father:

So Saul knew David prior to the killing of Goliath. When Saul asks David "Whose son are you young man?" in 1 Samuel 17:58

Fact is since Saul already knew who David was, the question "Whose son are you young man?" could only be a response to the many talents of this young man. Since he already knew who David's father was, he was having difficulty accepting that someone from such meager beginnings could be so talented.

I see your game now. Chris B.

What "game"?

It is fascinating the crazy lengths literalists go to if they can only thereby preserve the believed inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Alas your schema is not only preposterous, but in vain. It is clearly contradicted by the text. You would have us believe that Saul already knew David and was merely asking who his father was, as if Hebrews were not always referred to as A son of B on almost all occasions. To ask "whose son are you?" in such a patriarchal society is the way of asking "what is your name?" And that is the manifest meaning in the passage you cite.

But that Saul unaccountably didn't previously know David's patronym, though he knew David as his musician and armour bearer, is not merely absurd, it is explicitly ruled out here.

1 Sam 16:19 Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep.

He appointed David his armour bearer but we are asked to believe that Abner, captain of the host, doesn't know his patronym. Not very professional. So even if Saul had forgotten on account of his mental disorders, Abner or others were there to tell him. Your scenario is ruled out not only by every criterion of rationality, but by the inerrant text itself into the bargain. Try again.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, I hadn't read your exegesis of the David meets Saul passages when I wrote my last. I have now, and great is the amusement it has given me! What "game"?

It is fascinating the crazy lengths literalists go to if they can only thereby preserve the believed inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Alas your schema is not only preposterous, but in vain. It is clearly contradicted by the text. You would have us believe that Saul already knew David and was merely asking who his father was, as if Hebrews were not always referred to as A son of B on almost all occasions. To ask "whose son are you?" in such a patriarchal society is the way of asking "what is your name?" And that is the manifest meaning in the passage you cite.

But that Saul unaccountably didn't previously know David's patronym, though he knew David as his musician and armour bearer, is not merely absurd, it is explicitly ruled out here. He appointed David his armour bearer but we are asked to believe that Abner, captain of the host, doesn't know his patronym. Not very professional. So even if Saul had forgotten on account of his mental disorders, Abner or others were there to tell him. Your scenario is ruled out not only by every criterion of rationality, but by the inerrant text itself into the bargain. Try again.

Please read the hilited text taken from my previous post below since you seem to have missed it.

Fact is since Saul already knew who David was, the question "Whose son are you young man?" could only be a response to the many talents of this young man. Since he already knew who David's father was, he was having difficulty accepting that someone from such meager beginnings could be so talented.

So to further clarify this, Saul was questioning how David could accomplish such a great deed as slaying Goliath when he came from the bloodline of a shepherd. "Whose son are you young man?" in modern times Saul would have likely exclaimed "Well who do we have here?" as a way of praising David's deed, not because he didn't know who David was.

I must admit it takes a special way of looking at the text to come up with a theory that Saul and David met for the first time on multiple occasions and so to further base an opinion that the text is flawed. You're now trying to twist words and are clearly reaching, but why?

It's so simple, why the effort to complicate something so? Your logic in this case is beyond bizarre.
Chris B.

 

[Border Reiver]

Please read the hilited text taken from my previous post below since you seem to have missed it.

Fact is since Saul already knew who David was, the question "Whose son are you young man?" could only be a response to the many talents of this young man. Since he already knew who David's father was, he was having difficulty accepting that someone from such meager beginnings could be so talented.

So to further clarify this, Saul was questioning how David could accomplish such a great deed as slaying Goliath when he came from the bloodline of a shepherd. "Whose son are you young man?" in modern times Saul would have likely exclaimed "Well who do we have here?" as a way of praising David's deed, not because he didn't know who David was.

I must admit it takes a special way of looking at the text to come up with a theory that Saul and David met for the first time on multiple occasions and so to further base an opinion that the text is flawed. You're now trying to twist words and are clearly reaching, but why?

It's so simple, why the effort to complicate something so? Your logic in this case is beyond bizarre.
Chris B.

When was the last time you heard someone praise another using the phrase "Who do we have here?" or "are you sure he's your father?"

The short answer is "no one." If you are going to praise a multi-talented individual of humble origins, calling his parentage into question is a real insult. And based on your understanding of Caananite culture, it would also imply that he's a bastard and his mother an adultress - potentially giving rise to a blood feud between Saul and David.

 

[Nihilianth]

The precise practice of quarantine, though the modern word was not then in use, was applied in Italy during the Black Death epidemic in 1347. The principle behind this was indeed known in ancient times. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/publichealth/blackdeath.aspx

There is also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare

Biological warfare stretches as far back as the Hittites about 1500 BC.

And besides, human beings are pretty darn smart creatures. Ancient people were just as smart as those of us living today. It only takes a little observation before people realize and/or figure out that sicknesses spread. Not to mention, humans, like animals, are naturally afraid of the sick; are naturally disgusted and/or repulsed by them.

 

[Nihilianth]

I am going to keep posting this on every single page until Chris answers this post, or admits he was wrong:

Ok. Definition of "Generation:"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generation

noun
1.
the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time:
the postwar generation.
2.
the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.
3.
a group of individuals, most of whom are the same approximate age, having similar ideas, problems, attitudes, etc.
Compare Beat Generation, Lost Generation.
4.
a group of individuals belonging to a specific category at the same time:
Chaplin belonged to the generation of silent-screen stars.
5.
a single step in natural descent, as of human beings, animals, or plants.
6.
a form, type, class, etc., of objects existing at the same time and having many similarities or developed from a common model or ancestor (often used in combination): a new generation of anticancer drugs;
a third-generation phone.
7.
the offspring of a certain parent or couple, considered as a step in natural descent.


If you pick the word apart, this is what you get:

"Gen," which can mean "race."
"-ration," which means "daily portion in times of scarcity." Usually, means a restricted portion for a specific period of time. Usually, rations are daily portions. Or even three times per day, portions.

So, "generation" means: "A race during a specific period or portion of time." The connotation for how the word is commonly used throughout most human civilizations down to our time, means people from the same age group. Much like a ration is a portion of food for a single day, or a third of a day.

That is the very definition for "γενεὰ."

In any case, just because a word in modern English can have multiple usages (I don't buy that for the modern English word "generation," but whatever,) does NOT mean that a word from a completely different language, from a completely different time period will have all the exact same "multiple usages" as the modern-day translation of that word! Words change meaning all the time. Hell, words can change meaning every year, depending on how culture changes. So just because you can come up with a dictionary definition (and yes, it is a modern English dictionary that Chris B used,) does NOT mean that definition ("race") applies to the word "γενεὰ."

So, Chris B, that is why it has been asked of you to come up with a Greek source using the word "γενεὰ" to mean "race." Otherwise, your modern English definition is useless. It is anyway, as even in modern English, that is NOT how the word "generation" is ever used. When a person means "race," they say "race." Not "generation."

 

[Craig B]

Please read the hilited text taken from my previous post below since you seem to have missed it.

Fact is since Saul already knew who David was, the question "Whose son are you young man?" could only be a response to the many talents of this young man. Since he already knew who David's father was, he was having difficulty accepting that someone from such meager beginnings could be so talented.

So to further clarify this, Saul was questioning how David could accomplish such a great deed as slaying Goliath when he came from the bloodline of a shepherd. "Whose son are you young man?" in modern times Saul would have likely exclaimed "Well who do we have here?" as a way of praising David's deed, not because he didn't know who David was.

I must admit it takes a special way of looking at the text to come up with a theory that Saul and David met for the first time on multiple occasions and so to further base an opinion that the text is flawed. You're now trying to twist words and are clearly reaching, but why?

It's so simple, why the effort to complicate something so? Your logic in this case is beyond bizarre.

Not half as bizarre as your hilited passage. If you believe that you'll accept anything! But of course you will, in order to sustain belief in the inerrancy of the Holy Texts. Let's look at the passage again in the light of your latest preposterousness. Why did Saul ask David his father's name, when he already knew it? Because, you say, Saul was questioning how David could accomplish such a great deed as slaying Goliath when he came from the bloodline of a shepherd ... in modern times Saul would have likely exclaimed "Well who do we have here?" as a way of praising David's deed, not because he didn't know who David was. OK, now the text.

And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine

That is, before David had killed Goliath: before there was any deed to praise!

he said unto Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling is.

And this exchange is supposed to be the equivalent of somebody today saying, Well who do we have here? But what then is Abner's comment supposed to mean in that case? Is Abner nuts too, like his master Saul? And Saul telling Abner, go and find out who he is. How does that fit into your ridiculous exegesis?

And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.

That last bit means: what is your name, and where are you from? It is asked by someone who doesn't know, and it is respectfully answered by David. No other explanation of this passage makes any sense at all; certainly not that David has been giving Saul music therapy for his psychological condition, and serving him as his armour bearer, prior to this conversation.

But there is simply no limit to what literalists will do with texts to retain the appearance of inerrancy.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not half as bizarre as your hilited passage. If you believe that you'll accept anything! But of course you will, in order to sustain belief in the inerrancy of the Holy Texts. Let's look at the passage again in the light of your latest preposterousness. Why did Saul ask David his father's name, when he already knew it? Because, you say, Saul was questioning how David could accomplish such a great deed as slaying Goliath when he came from the bloodline of a shepherd ... in modern times Saul would have likely exclaimed "Well who do we have here?" as a way of praising David's deed, not because he didn't know who David was. OK, now the text. That is, before David had killed Goliath: before there was any deed to praise! And this exchange is supposed to be the equivalent of somebody today saying, Well who do we have here? But what then is Abner's comment supposed to mean in that case? Is Abner nuts too, like his master Saul? And Saul telling Abner, go and find out who he is. How does that fit into your ridiculous exegesis? That last bit means: what is your name, and where are you from? It is asked by someone who doesn't know, and it is respectfully answered by David. No other explanation of this passage makes any sense at all; certainly not that David has been giving Saul music therapy for his psychological condition, and serving him as his armour bearer, prior to this conversation.

But there is simply no limit to what literalists will do with texts to retain the appearance of inerrancy.

Is it your position that Saul in his depressed state may have forgotten who David's father was? If so, I find that difficult to accept. After all Saul thought the world of David and even offered him use of his armor for the battle with Goliath.

I find my position that Saul was praising David to be more reasonable and so more acceptable since it fits into the account nicely, especially since David had just slain Goliath and in Saul's view performed an incredible task that none of his other men would even attempt.
Chris B.

 

[Craig B]

Is it your position that Saul in his depressed state may have forgotten who David's father was?

No I was joking.

If so, I find that difficult to accept. After all Saul thought the world of David and even offered him use of his armor for the battle with Goliath.

Which David was hopelessly unfamiliar with, in spite of having allegedly been appointed armour bearer as well as therapeutic harpist to Saul. I see.

I find my position that Saul was praising David to be more reasonable and so more acceptable since it fits into the account nicely, especially since David had just slain Goliath and in Saul's view performed an incredible task that none of his other men would even attempt.

But the comment was made before the duel had started. And he asks Abner, and Abner doesn't know either so Saul orders him to find out. None of this fits into your account at all. But your account is so weird that nothing would easily fit it, except an implicit belief in the inerrancy of "God's Word".

Next, the two Michals. Then the two censuses. Or in reverse order. Either would do.

 

[Leumas]

I don't understand why it's such a big deal to affirm the earliest text to discuss quarantine methods is the Old Testament? It's a fact.

That doesn't mean we must assign a supernatural meaning to it, just that it was a very good practice for that time and the earliest recorded instruction manual for it.

Yes ... but that is not at all what you are doing.... here let me remind you of what you are doing

I get that. But we should understand that we may not know the reason behind the things they did that seem nonsensical to us now until we make the effort to investigate what those things were and why they did them.

Some of the practices in the Bible seem to tie in with modern science as well. The practice of quarantine for example, comes from the Bible and a time where man could have no idea that germs existed simply because it was impossible for them to see a germ. Yet, they knew in certain exposures people must be quarantined. Brow raising.

I (here and here) and numerous others have pointed out to you that

• It is not modern
• Even ANTS do it (see here)
• It is not science
• Numerous other cultures have plenty of reasons to RAISE THEIR BROWS than the mere practice of throwing people out for being diseased (see here)
• Numerous other cultures have MEDICAL PRACTICES that are MUCH MORE AKIN to modern science than the practice of throwing people out of society and then burning slaughtered animals as atonement for their sins (see here)
• MEDICAL Books (and others) written by Egyptians and Babylonians portray INFINITELY MORE REASONS FOR BROW RAISING than the Bible (see here)
• It is not humane to throw people out for being diseased
• It is not scientific to burn slaughtered and torn asunder animals for treatment of diseases
• It is not BROW RAISING to have written down commandments to do things that EVEN ANTS know how to do (see here)
• It is not scientific to fail to do what even some species of ants have long before already discovered .... immunization
• It is brow lowering that YHWH FAILED to set down at the very least some real curing methods for the diseases that required the INHUMANE practice of THROWING PEOPLE OUT OF CAMP and then burning their tents and everything they touched
• It is brow lowering that YHWH FAILED to reach the level of medical knowhow of even the Egyptians and Babylonians let alone "modern science" (see here)

So MOVING THE GOAL POSTS is yet another casuistic practiced by biblical apologists.

And of course that is on top of the UTTER BROW LOWERING SHAME of all this utterly retarded and unscientific stuff below

Which has been the instigator of one of the vilest theologies ever envisaged by humanity.

One which is an insult to any god worthy of the title if one could possible exist.

Thomas Paine

• What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.
  _
  
• Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter.
  _
  
• The Church was resolved to have a New Testament, and as, after the lapse of more than three hundred years, no handwriting could be proved or disproved, the Church, which like former impostors had then gotten possession of the State, had everything its own way. It invented creeds, such as that called the Apostle's Creed, the Nicean Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and out of the loads of rubbish that were presented it voted four to be Gospels, and others to be Epistles, as we now find them arranged.
  _
  
• The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice.
  _
  
• When I see throughout this book, called the Bible, a history of the grossest vices and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales and stories, I could not so dishonor my Creator by calling it by His name.
  _
  
• It is far better that we admitted a thousand devils to roam at large than that we permitted one such imposter and monster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Bible prophets, to come with the pretended word of God and have credit among us.
  _
  
• As to the book called the bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men.
  _
  
• We must be compelled to hold this doctrine to be false, and the old and new law called the Old and New Testament, to be impositions, fables and forgeries.
  _
  
• Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
  _
  
• The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.

...

And what lesson is that... that it is ok to be a cowardly poltroon and pimp off one's half-sister wife or one's first cousin wife and cash in by selling off her "beauty" to kings so as to gain in payment lots of gold and slaves?

Is that the lesson?

Abraham was a COWARDLY PIMP who pimped off Sarah his half sister wife and made tons of money off of her "beauty" being used by Pharaoh.... and did it again with another King.

Isaac took up the family PIMPING business and he too for the coward he was made his first cousin wife lie and say she was his sister so as to save his cowardly hide like his father and sold off her "beauty" and cashed in too.

So are those the lessons we should be learning?

Should we all start PIMPING our wives to become "very rich"?

Or is the lesson that God is a lying moron who TRICKS people and makes them snip off the tips of their genitals to ratify real estate contracts and then the real estate turns out to be WORTHLESS?

God promised Abraham that he will be his FRIEND AND SHIELD...yet Abraham could not rely on that... Abraham did not trust that the almighty creator of everything is in fact going to KEEP HIS WORD and thus had to lie and use tricks to save his hide and resorted to pimping Sarah's "beauty" off.

And Abraham was right in not trusting this LIAR GOD.... he had just seen how this LIAR GOD is a MORON.... because he made him a promise to give him descendants as countless as the stars in the heavens and yet his wife turns out to be barren (or was it him).... this DECEIVER GOD promised a land full of honey and milk and yet he had to flee from it because of a famine and drought... TWICE ... and again his son too and later again all SEVENTY of his countless-as-stars descendants so as to become slaves for 470 years without this IMBECILIC GOD who is supposed to be their friend and shield even blinking with sympathy for them.... and despite all these promises Abraham could not even find a place to burry his half-sister-wife after she died and had to BUY a plot from the OWNERS of the land supposedly promised to him by the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and who did not see fit to give him Hawaii let alone a PLANET out of the entire universe where Abraham would not have needed to pimp off his sister.... a good thing Abraham could afford to pay for the burial plot with all that wealth he made from pimping Sarah off.

So yes... Abraham had to pimp off his wife because he really could not rely on this TRICKSTER God to keep his promises of being a shield when this god has already proven to be an UTTER LIAR on all counts.

And Abraham trying to kill Isaac was nothing to do with God or as a lesson to stop child sacrifice.

Abraham wanted to kill Isaac because Isaac was Pharaoh' BASTARD CHILD after Abraham pimped Sarah to him.
....

 

[Leumas]

When I study, I try to determine the "why" of events described in the Bible. This requires a cross reference with other cultures in the region when possible. Some things I agree with , some I do not.

Oops, once again a reference to apologist, as before I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't apologize for anything in the Bible and I don't read it with that in mind. There is some pretty bad stuff mixed in with the good. I look at all of it in an effort to learn more about the culture.

It looks like you are more into stone throwing.

A person who is truly studying a text with an impartial disinvested objective outlook would not react with utter hostility and vile attacks on a person pointing out the problems of the text as if it were an attack on his personal entire fabric of being.

Instead of responding to my exposition of the biblical rubbish with any erudite rebuttal or acceptance (as you claim you already know) you resorted TIME AND AGAIN to attacking my character and calling me names.

It looks like you are more into stone throwing.

... Are you angry about something or what? I would suggest you try not to concentrate on your personal feelings when reading the texts of the Bible. It will interfere with your ability to absorb the lessons being relayed and the comprehension of what you've read IMO. It's almost as if you feel threatened by the Bible? It's just a book. Chris B.

... I have no time for those with an agenda attempting to reinforce their own doubts about what they believe or not.

Dang, your bias is showing. I can honestly say I've never seen a more energetic attempt to offend the Jesus lovers. And to throw in antisemitism to boot. Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the texts of the Bible. I find your presentation lacking, filled with uneducated assumptions and more to do with hate speech rather than any sort of educated debate. Feed your head and we may be able to have a discussion at some future date. Or not.

... Literal interpretation of any one passage may be convenient for those with an agenda, but the entire methodology of the text demonstrates otherwise...

And that is on top of equating the criticism of the Bible to holocaust denial. Hardly indicative of any scholarly attitudes.

It is my opinion the tasks performed by the Hebrews as described were highly noteworthy. To discount them as nothing, and to further discount the area of Megiddo and its significance in the region is offensive to the culture IMO.

To question whether or not the Bible is true would certainly be an insult. Not only to the religion but also to the entire culture in general. I think you'd receive about the same reaction if you were claiming the accounts of the holocaust are made up and that it never really happened.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No I was joking.

I agree, it's funny but nevertheless, it is the opinion of some that due to his mental state Saul indeed briefly forgot who David's father was. I've never put much consideration into that because of their relationship. (David the armour bearer, musician, servant of Saul)

Which David was hopelessly unfamiliar with, in spite of having allegedly been appointed armour bearer as well as therapeutic harpist to Saul. I see.

It doesn't say David was unfamiliar with the armour, it says he was not used to wearing it. The passage below mentions it twice. Bearing it for someone else, and wearing it yourself, are two very different things. And since David was a boy and Saul's armour and tunic were designed for a man, it likely didn't fit him very well either.

1 Samuel 17:38-39

"38 Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. 39 David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them.

“I cannot go in these,” he said to Saul, “because I am not used to them.” So he took them off."

But the comment was made before the duel had started. And he asks Abner, and Abner doesn't know either so Saul orders him to find out. None of this fits into your account at all. But your account is so weird that nothing would easily fit it, except an implicit belief in the inerrancy of "God's Word".

When we look at 1 Samuel 17:55 it gives us the gist of the moment: "55 As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner, commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is that young man?”

Abner replied, “As surely as you live, Your Majesty, I don’t know.”

Saul has just dressed David in his tunic and armour, which David refused to wear into battle because he was not used to them. And now Saul witnesses David running at full sprint toward the Philistine Goliath. This young boy has no fear whatsoever of the giant Goliath whom his other men ran from and none of them would meet him combat. So Saul says to Abner " Abner, whose son is that young man?" Saul knew who David's father was supposed to be but he was shocked that a son of a shepherd would be so fearless in battle. Abner was likewise shocked by David's bravery. So the question of David's lineage when he brings Goliath's head to Saul were not because he didn't already know David's father was Jesse, it was because he was impressed with this boy and wondered how David could accomplish such a task coming from that line. Saul may as well have said "Come on, we know you couldn't possibly be the son of Jesse and do these things, tell us really, whose your father?"
To which David still would have said: “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.”

Now David's reply has two meanings. First, he is confirming he is the same David that Saul has always known, and second, he's putting on record that Jesse of Bethlehem is the man/family to be released from paying taxes from now on.

Next, the two Michals. Then the two censuses. Or in reverse order. Either would do.

It sounds like an interesting subject and I do intend to read into it when time permits. But at this time I am unable to have any sort of meaningful discussion on Michal the individual as I honestly have not put any previous effort of study on her. I only recalled she was the daughter of Saul and one of David's wives, but I still had to look it up to be sure that was correct. I am still grossly uneducated on her. Sorry. Chris B.

 

[Craig B]

Saul may as well have said "Come on, we know you couldn't possibly be the son of Jesse and do these things, tell us really, whose your father?"
To which David still would have said: “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.”

Now David's reply has two meanings. First, he is confirming he is the same David that Saul has always known, and second, he's putting on record that Jesse of Bethlehem is the man/family to be released from paying taxes from now on.

That is nonsense, given that David allegedly originally entered Saul's service because Saul sent a message to Jesse instructing him to send his son. Your assumptions are ridiculous and arbitrary, and are designed to protect scriptural infallibility at any cost.

I also note that you had no idea who Michal was. But have you not said you have great interest in the Biblical story of David? It therefore seems strange that you haven't come across her as she is named 17 times in the AV/KJV, including in some lurid contexts like 1 Samuel 18

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.

Stirring stuff, the Word of God, eh?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yes ... but that is not at all what you are doing.... here let me remind you of what you are doing




I (here and here) and numerous others have pointed out to you that

• It is not modern
• Even ANTS do it (see here)
• It is not science
• Numerous other cultures have plenty of reasons to RAISE THEIR BROWS than the mere practice of throwing people out for being diseased (see here)
• Numerous other cultures have MEDICAL PRACTICES that are MUCH MORE AKIN to modern science than the practice of throwing people out of society and then burning slaughtered animals as atonement for their sins (see here)
• MEDICAL Books (and others) written by Egyptians and Babylonians portray INFINITELY MORE REASONS FOR BROW RAISING than the Bible (see here)
• It is not humane to throw people out for being diseased
• It is not scientific to burn slaughtered and torn asunder animals for treatment of diseases
• It is not BROW RAISING to have written down commandments to do things that EVEN ANTS know how to do (see here)
• It is not scientific to fail to do what even some species of ants have long before already discovered .... immunization
• It is brow lowering that YHWH FAILED to set down at the very least some real curing methods for the diseases that required the INHUMANE practice of THROWING PEOPLE OUT OF CAMP and then burning their tents and everything they touched
• It is brow lowering that YHWH FAILED to reach the level of medical knowhow of even the Egyptians and Babylonians let alone "modern science" (see here)

So MOVING THE GOAL POSTS is yet another casuistic practiced by biblical apologists.

And of course that is on top of the UTTER BROW LOWERING SHAME of all this utterly retarded and unscientific stuff below

I pointed out the earliest written practice of quarantine is found in the Old Testament. Do you have an earlier written example of quarantine? I'd be happy to entertain whatever you have found. I've not found any to predate the Old Testament account.

A person who is truly studying a text with an impartial disinvested objective outlook would not react with utter hostility and vile attacks on a person pointing out the problems of the text as if it were an attack on his personal entire fabric of being.

Instead of responding to my exposition of the biblical rubbish with any erudite rebuttal or acceptance (as you claim you already know) you resorted TIME AND AGAIN to attacking my character and calling me names.


And that is on top of equating the criticism of the Bible to holocaust denial. Hardly indicative of any scholarly attitudes.

I don't recall attacking anyone? I may point out an emotional investment from time to time though. If I remember correctly you seem to be posting the comments designed to upset "believers". That won't work with me as I don't tie any particular religious beliefs from any of these texts. Unfortunately, Jesus is not coming to save me. I will not go to heaven because I am a chosen race and missing part of my penis to prove it. There are no virgins waiting for me in paradise (though this would have sounded appealing in my 20's), I will not be reborn higher or lower as someone or something else here on good old planet Earth based on my current life choices.

I do enjoy study though because however you may personally view these texts, they're all very interesting works and each contains it's own wisdom if you look deep enough.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That is nonsense, given that David allegedly originally entered Saul's service because Saul sent a message to Jesse instructing him to send his son. Your assumptions are ridiculous and arbitrary, and are designed to protect scriptural infallibility at any cost.

If you wish to accept that David and Saul first met on multiple occasions that's fine. I think it's incorrect, but that's my opinion.

I also note that you had no idea who Michal was. But have you not said you have great interest in the Biblical story of David? It therefore seems strange that you haven't come across her as she is named 17 times in the AV/KJV, including in some lurid contexts like 1 Samuel 18 Stirring stuff, the Word of God, eh?

You're twisting words. I said previously the only knowledge I have of Michal was that she was Saul's daughter and one of David's wives. And so? What do you want from me? I don't know her, and I have admitted it, but yes indeed I do know David. Only by study of David did I know of Michal at all. Can I not admit when I don't know every single person in the Bible by close personal study of each one? Surely you don't know every detail of every character mentioned in the Bible? If you do I'll admit I'm impressed because I sure as heck don't.
Chris B.