The Evil Bible

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016196
I don't understand your anaolgy. You say the writings of the bible are wholesome. This site you have a vile disdain for simply posted exact passages from the bible and made THEIR interpretation of what was being said. So in that sense, they did all the homework and learned the origins. As I asked, what passages do you disagree with? Take this passage:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB).
So I'm supposed to research Leviticus to see why he would make a statement like this about murder? Or is this one quote taken from a larger passage that explains why the statement is made?
This passage:
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Am I to assume that I should research how people lived back then, and what was normal when it came to invading an enemies home before interpreting 'enjoy the spoils of your enemies' to mean that God gave them the right to do whatever they want to the women and children they conquered? Whether or not this was a customary practice back then is irrelevent. The fact is, the passage is in the bible and discusses the atrocities of war and its consequences. Not exactly Disney Channel material if you ask me.
Re-read the first and second page of this thread. You'll get your answer if you actually listen to what I said.
In my mind, you've lost all credibility. I can't tell an actual question from a way to bait me into a useless argument for your pleasure. It's better for me to respond as minimally as possible.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3016246
Re-read the first and second page of this thread. You'll get your answer if you actually listen to what I said.
In my mind, you've lost all credibility. I can't tell an actual question from a way to bait me into a useless argument for your pleasure. It's better for me to respond as minimally as possible.
I'm not trying to 'bait' you into anything. You've made the statement that the bible is this wholesome document, yet there are passages in that book that contradict what you claim. My questions have nothing to do with credibility. I am simply asking how you can interpret these last two passages any other way than how they've benn interpreted by me or this group on this Evil Bible site. If you choose not to respond, that is completely up to you.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016529
I'm not trying to 'bait' you into anything. You've made the statement that the bible is this wholesome document, yet there are passages in that book that contradict what you claim. My questions have nothing to do with credibility. I am simply asking how you can interpret these last two passages any other way than how they've benn interpreted by me or this group on this Evil Bible site. If you choose not to respond, that is completely up to you.
You know the difference between the new and old testaments. The New testament is wholesome and is life-applicable, the Old testament is historical. The rules changed in the New Testament. I feel like a frickin parrot - I know I've said this same exact thing at least twice before.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016196
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Am I to assume that I should research how people lived back then, and what was normal when it came to invading an enemies home before interpreting 'enjoy the spoils of your enemies' to mean that God gave them the right to do whatever they want to the women and children they conquered? Whether or not this was a customary practice back then is irrelevent. The fact is, the passage is in the bible and discusses the atrocities of war and its consequences. Not exactly Disney Channel material if you ask me.
Here's an answer I found on Yahoo:
"Hmmm ... first off, r@pe is not mentioned or even hinted at. That's a presumption you make which is unfounded.
These people were the enemy of the Israelites and worshipers of false gods. Rather than just destroy them all, God told the Israelites to offer them a peace proposal. They refused and chose war.
Slavery in those days by the way, is not what you think. Slaves were more like hired hands. Certainly better treated than the stereotypical black slave of the South. So that presumption is unfounded as well.
It has been common practice throughout eternity for the spoils to go to the victor in battle. So I don't understand your contempt for this passage."

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016196
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB).
So I'm supposed to research Leviticus to see why he would make a statement like this about murder? Or is this one quote taken from a larger passage that explains why the statement is made?
Dude, the wages of ANY sin in the Old testament was death.
Keep in mind also that when God had someone killed (like the firstborn in that passage you gave earlier in this thread) that God ultimately gives them a go-to-heaven-free card. Not a bad deal if you understand what you're getting. It sucked for the father not to know his firstborn, but he'll get to see the firstborn in heaven.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3016672
You know the difference between the new and old testaments. The New testament is wholesome and is life-applicable, the Old testament is historical. The rules changed in the New Testament. I feel like a frickin parrot - I know I've said this same exact thing at least twice before.
Here's an answer I found on Yahoo:
"Hmmm ... first off, r@pe is not mentioned or even hinted at. That's a presumption you make which is unfounded.
These people were the enemy of the Israelites and worshipers of false gods. Rather than just destroy them all, God told the Israelites to offer them a peace proposal. They refused and chose war.
Slavery in those days by the way, is not what you think. Slaves were more like hired hands. Certainly better treated than the stereotypical black slave of the South. So that presumption is unfounded as well.
It has been common practice throughout eternity for the spoils to go to the victor in battle. So I don't understand your contempt for this passage."
Those responses provide a very logical explanation of how slavery and murder were defined in the bible. As far as ----, the site posted this passgae:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of r@ping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Now the word r@pe is explicitedly used in that passage. I haven't looked it up in a bible, so I have no clue whether the phrase is accurate, or taken out of context for this site to get their point across.
I honestly don't recall what the differences are between the Old and New Testament. I'm not the type of person who sits and tries to read a book where you have to spend 90% of the time interpreting the meaning of each line.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016725
Those responses provide a very logical explanation of how slavery and murder were defined in the bible. As far as ----, the site posted this passgae:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of r@ping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Now the word r@pe is explicitedly used in that passage. I haven't looked it up in a bible, so I have no clue whether the phrase is accurate, or taken out of context for this site to get their point across.
I honestly don't recall what the differences are between the Old and New Testament. I'm not the type of person who sits and tries to read a book where you have to spend 90% of the time interpreting the meaning of each line.
the correct text is,
If a man finds a young woman, who IS a virg1n, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found out, Then the man shall give to the young woman's father 50 sheckels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
Now, if this text was refering to ----, why would it hold the context of "if THEY are found out"?
Like I said before you want to interpret evil you will.
And what is truly sad to me is you are taking the word of the website at face value without doing your own research.
Tends to force your credibility to go down the drain.
Darth (The plumber) Tang

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3016676
Keep in mind also that when God had someone killed (like the firstborn in that passage you gave earlier in this thread) that God ultimately gives them a go-to-heaven-free card.
Well, technically nobody went to heaven until Jesus came and died.....

 

[sepulatian]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016725
Now the word r@pe is explicitedly used in that passage. I haven't looked it up in a bible, so I have no clue whether the phrase is accurate, or taken out of context for this site to get their point across.
If you have no clue if it is accurate then why are you quoting it?
I honestly don't recall what the differences are between the Old and New Testament. I'm not the type of person who sits and tries to read a book where you have to spend 90% of the time interpreting the meaning of each line.
Are you serious? You are the person that picks apart every shred of every law, bill, constitutional amendment, apparently biblical verses, etc. just to argue about nothing. Every bit of everything that you talk about on here came from a text that must be interpreted in some way.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3016797
Well, technically nobody went to heaven until Jesus came and died.....
Specifically, when He rose on Easter morning. You know of Abraham's bosom?
You may be correct. The exception being Enoch and Elijah who did not experience a physical death, but were "taken" to heaven.
The word heaven is used when Elijah ascended. God simply "took" Enoch.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3016797
Well, technically nobody went to heaven until Jesus came and died.....
This is not true... not everyone was condemned to hell in History before Jesus. That would mean that Noah is burning in hell right now... abraham and his sons... all burning in hell? Nope. People still went to heaven. It was just more difficult because we needed to pay for our sins with a sacrifice.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/3016820
Specifically, when He rose on Easter morning. You know of Abraham's bosom?
You may be correct. The exception being Enoch and Elijah who did not experience a physical death, but were "taken" to heaven.
The word heaven is used when Elijah ascended. God simply "took" Enoch.
People still went to heaven, but the incident with Elijah was the only one in the bible where someone didn't "die" before they got to heaven. Elijah never died.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016725
I honestly don't recall what the differences are between the Old and New Testament. I'm not the type of person who sits and tries to read a book where you have to spend 90% of the time interpreting the meaning of each line.

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3009924
As Mantisman stated, I know more about the Bible and religion than you think. My mother is a devout Catholic of 83 years, and I grew up respecting her religion. I went to Catholic school for 6 years. God and the Bible were drilled into my head on a daily basis.
The difference between the Old and New Testament is Bible 101. If you had the bible drilled into your head for 6 years, it's got to be in there somewhere. Even if it isn't, I explained it earlier in the forum...
Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3009267
Absolutely Yes, we are to criticize it. But the supposed contradictions are not contradictory at all when you begin to understand a deeper meaning behind the bible. Most of the contradictions they were using on that website are actually just the difference between the new testament (NT) and old testament (OT). Yes, God is unchanging. Yes, God is all-knowing. We have the same God as we did in the old testament, but the rules are different because of the resurrection. Again, the rules are different.
Example: back in the day, if you sinned, you needed to sacrifice an innocent animal or else you'd be struck down by God (which happens a lot in the OT, sometimes entire cities, like Sodom and Gomorra) but because Jesus was our innocent and sinless sacrifice (NT), we have been relieved of that sin. For those who do not partake of this forgiveness, death will eventually come. We all die, but the question is where we go when it happens.
Now I'm not going to throw everyone under the bus because they don't believe the same religion as me. The truth is that I am not to judge who is righteous enough for heaven or not... none of us have that right to judge. SO having said that, I'm not going to go there.
But that's why that website (the evil bible) has no standing in my mind... because it's a reaction, not valid information. If they dug a little deeper and actually studied the bible, they would see that contradictions are almost non-existant. I say almost because I haven't read the entire bible word for word and with enough depth to check all words for contradictions. IF someone has a contradiction, bring it up here and lets talk about it.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3016834
People still went to heaven, but the incident with Elijah was the only one in the bible where someone didn't "die" before they got to heaven. Elijah never died.
Nope. Before Jesus' resurrection people went to Abrahams bosom, not heaven. Jesus took these people from Abrahams bosom to heaven after He conquered death.
http://www.biblepath.com/questions/answer31.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/abrahams.html
Enoch did not die a physical death either...
"Gen 5:21-24 KJV And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: [v. 22] And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: [v. 23] And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: [v. 24] And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Heb 11:5 KJV By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3016838
The difference between the Old and New Testament is Bible 101. If you had the bible drilled into your head for 6 years, it's got to be in there somewhere. Even if it isn't, I explained it earlier in the forum...
That 6 years of religious education was almost 50 years ago. Only time I've glanced at a bible since then was when I found one stuffed in one of my bookcases. Think someone gave it to me as a wedding present. Considering I'm not a religious person, I see no need to sit down and read a book that is based on religion. I'd probably fall asleep after the first 20 or so begats...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
http:///forum/post/3016815
If you have no clue if it is accurate then why are you quoting it?
Are you serious? You are the person that picks apart every shred of every law, bill, constitutional amendment, apparently biblical verses, etc. just to argue about nothing. Every bit of everything that you talk about on here came from a text that must be interpreted in some way.
The quote came from the Evil Bible site, not from me. Nick says the word r@pe was never used in the bible. This passage contradicted that viewpoint. Apparently they were wrong, as Darth has pointed out. So I suppose that supports Nick's claims to the validity of the site.
I don't argue, I debate. That's what 90% of the threads in this forum are about. Problem is, when people here disagree with what I say, they come back with this "quit making personal attacks". Go back and reread some rebuttals from the people I've debated with. You'll see that many of the rebuttal responses towards me have the same 'personal attack' aura as you claim I convey.

 

[socal57che]

A commentary bible is well worth the extra few dollars. It gives a lot of background info that has been lost throughout history. The bible itself is a difficult read. If I were to recommend a bible to someone it would definitely include a commentary. My wife and I both have benefited from her study bible.
http://www.allbibles.com/itemdesc.as...dName=&eq=&Tp=
People will get what they expect from the Bible. Expect little and we get little. Expect a miracle...and lives can change.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016896
That 6 years of religious education was almost 50 years ago. Only time I've glanced at a bible since then was when I found one stuffed in one of my bookcases. Think someone gave it to me as a wedding present. Considering I'm not a religious person, I see no need to sit down and read a book that is based on religion. I'd probably fall asleep after the first 20 or so begats...
Why claim to have "more knowledge than we think" and then turn around and say you don't know much though? That's what I don't understand.
Also, why are you even bothering to argue a topic you admittedly know very little, if anything, about?

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3016898
I don't argue, I debate. That's what 90% of the threads in this forum are about. Problem is, when people here disagree with what I say, they come back with this "quit making personal attacks". Go back and reread some rebuttals from the people I've debated with. You'll see that many of the rebuttal responses towards me have the same 'personal attack' aura as you claim I convey.
If you don't make personal attacks, how am I supposed to receive this? (see the following)
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3009298
You're trying to justify murder

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3009298
You're one of the fanatics I described in the latter part of my second response.

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3009569
Ignorance is only in the eye of the beholder.
You were referring to me in this one
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3009569
You are the one who doesn't have the answers.
This one was directed at someone else, but also sets the tone for what we think of you because we're all reading it...
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3009774
What hole did you crawl out of after 3 years? Apparently you don't care to provide input on controversial or current event topics that often. Instead you like to provide useless jabs at people.
Here are more...
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3010042
If you walk around saying you hear little voices that tell you to do things, they're going to lock you up in a rubber room and throw away the key.

All this is only from page 1. I'd go through the rest of the pages but I need to get showered and get to work, but I think I've shown you where we find your attacks personal. It's pretty clear. Most of them start with "You" or "You're"... and yet I'm not supposed to take them as personal attacks???

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3016966
Why claim to have "more knowledge than we think" and then turn around and say you don't know much though? That's what I don't understand.
Also, why are you even bothering to argue a topic you admittedly know very little, if anything, about?

I use my 'beliefs' to debate the topic. Non-believers don't have a book to justify their arguments. When it comes to religious debates, you have to ask more questions to validate why a person who believes in God does so. The religious person normally references passages from the bible to support their argument. So to counter, a non-believer uses their interpretations of those passages to refute the believer's claim.
As far as personal attacks - show me what was stated before those responses. You'll probably find they were in response to some form of personal attack on my viewpoints and opinions. Some of my replies have a sarcastic tone, but it's done to get a point across to your relative statement to me. And yes Nick, based on your tone in any religious conversation we have, you do come off as what I define as a religious fanatic. Apparently you don't feel that way, but to someone who doesn't believe in religion, you have that fervor for what you believe in that is similar to what I see in other people who are devoted to religion. You are 'fanatical' about believing there is a God, and what is written in the bible. Some people of faith would take that as a compliment. If you take it as an insult, then I apologize for calling you 'fanatical'.

 

[dcoyle11]

Happy resurrection Monday my friends... He lives

Paint a picture of my heart in Your hands
Blend the colors cause You made me who I am
Mold me like wet clay; like hot sand
Conform; make me to be like the Lamb
Let Your breath be my wings
Send me as You will
With Your voice my mouth sings
Peace given now listen and be still
I want to see Your face
But I would die, I know
So bring me to the highest place
Let me feel Your afterglow