Hope this helps:

---

I'll write out a reply here, and you can copy-paste. If the person continues on this silliness, I'll create an account and get personal.

This is a logical fallacy here. Aside from straw-manning the anti-bible thing, the contradictions in the Bible span thousands. Some in clumps of 10-14 verses, and all are within the context of the passage.

Really? In the KJV? The one version of the Bible which has undergone more changes and additions and "corrections" to problems then any other version in the entire history of versions of the bible! Let's take a look at the greek, shall we?
One claim at a time. First, the most obvious, is your notion that "slave" is not used but once in the entire KJV, when in fact, the Greek shows something quite different. (Let me guess, you just went on Bible Gateway and did a word search and it turned up two verses, right? Typical non-learned Christian.)

Paul, for example, calls himself a slave to Christ many times over in his epistles. Romans 1:1, for example, although the doctored Greek translations say "servant", save the word in Greek is doulos or δουλος. The word means, literally, slave or born bondsman. The word appears in other works as well as the Bible, for example in the play by Aeschylus, Agamemnon, no doubt about the tragedy of Troy, δουλος is used in this passage:

1. Yet once more I would like to speak, but not a dirge. I pray to the sun, in presence of his latest light, that my enemies2 may at the same time pay to my avengers a bloody penalty for [1325] slaughtering a slave, an easy prey. Alas for human fortune! When prosperous, a mere shadow can overturn it3 ; if misfortune strikes, the dash of a wet sponge blots out the drawing. [1330] And this last I deem far more pitiable than that.

This is just one case where the term is evidence for the literal connotation. The problem with the KJV, and many of the newer versions of the Bible, like the NIV, are explained by McDowell and Stuart:

McDowell and Stewart are willing to concede on pages 50-52 of their book entitled Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity.

1. "The publication of the KJV of 1611 did not mark the end of new translations of the Bible. Sixteen years after the release of the Authorized Version (KJV), a 5th century Greek manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) was brought to England. This manuscript was centuries closer in time to the writing of the NT than the handful of manuscripts used to translate the KJV. Moreover, the Greek Codex Alexandrinus was different in certain respects than the text which was used to translate the KJV.

   During the next two and one half centuries, a great number of other new manuscripts were discovered, some dating as early as the middle of the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus, A.D. 325; Codex Siniaticus, A.D. 350).

   With these discoveries and a refining of the science of textual criticism, it was inevitable, and even desirable, that voices would cry out for a revision of the KJV.

   The purpose of the revision committee was revealed in a report submitted on May 3, 1870 by the Canterbury Committee.... 1. That it is decided that a revision of the KJV of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.... 3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the language, except when in the judgment of the most competent scholars such change is necessary....Any changes from the King James were to be done only when absolutely necessary....If such evidence warranted a change, the approval of at least two-thirds of the revisers was required before it would be incorporated into the text. The actual number of changes far exceeded the original expectations of the committee, but most of the numerous changes were merely grammatical (i.e., word order, sentence structure)....

   The great value of the RV is that it set a precedent for further translations which could incorporate the latest manuscript and linguistic and historical evidence into their versions.
   Regarding the NASB they say on page 71, "...the translators of the NASB attempted to bring the American Standard Version up to date, to be as faithful to the original languages as possible, and to present a clear and readable style...."

In fact the above proves that later versions were not only refined and redefined to correct major flaws and to modernize language, the fact that only minor word changes and sentence structure changes occurred speaks volumes of the KJV’s reliability. So trying to suggest that the word “slave” might have been a copyist error (which I am going to assume that somebody will try and bring that up next) is simply fraudulent. Even after 300 years of manuscript findings, the very little corrections that was required to be made, and the fact that very little had to do with the translation itself, suggests that the KJV was the closest it could get in terms of translation from the start!

Although with new committees redefining the translations again, newer copies of the KJV have also been corrected to modernize and reflect the many “unlikable” and “negative” words and phrases in the Bible. Works like “kill” became “murder” and “slave” became “servant.” But the Greek doesn’t lie, and when one goes back to the Greek, one clearly can see the issue with trying to change around the words – in effect to make the Bible say what it doesn’t say – just to appease the population. That is exactly what has been done here.

To continue on point, Leviticus 25:39 talks about slavery as well, from the Hebrew phrase `abodah ‘ebed or the whole verse in Hebrew:

1. לט וכי ימוך אחיך עמך ונמכר לך--לא תעבד בו עבדת עבד
   OR
2. 'If your brother has grown poor among you, and sells himself to you; you shall not make him to serve as a slave.

“Serve as a slave” is the phrase I pointed to above, the phrase is very literal, meaning that one serves in bondage as a bondsman. It’s a nice way of saying slave, but calling a pot a kettle is not changing the physical and evident structure of the actual pot, it’s really just semantics. A pot is a pot regardless of it’s name, and a spade is a spade regardless.

In the end, the nature of Leviticus 25 is ripe with slave references, and the Hebrew reveals as much. 'Amah or “female slave” is used repeatedly between verses 44 and 55. Leviticus even states that these very 'amah and ‘ebed are your property, for that you have purchased, as described in verse 45, “Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have conceived in your land; and they will be your property.”

These are but a few examples of slavery being ever-present in the Bible. I could give you laundry lists, if you really want to keep debating me on this issue.

The main point of this is that the Bible condones such action, and Jesus doesn't lift one finger to end it, in fact he speaks favorably about slavery in a parable. (Luke 14:17) Here δουλον is used again. It's continually used, and refers explicitly to slavery. The act in which a human being is held as property in bondage to do the will of another human being.

It's an inhumane act, and the Bible allows it. This is the point at hand. The fact that you ignorantly thought it was non-existant is only evidence to how little you know about the Bible, and although it was fun showing you where you err, you should realize this is irrelevant.

As made clear, the Bible clearly is accepting of acts such as slavery. "If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property." (Ex. 21:20-21) (Before you ask, the word is 'ebed - note how here the translators decided to use "servant" instead of "slave" this time? This is just one example of how the translators play with the greek and the hebrew. This hebrew word still means slave, but they *tweak* the word in english becaus english is such a sloppy language, they can get away with it. The Hebrew and Greek, however, aren't so forgiving.)

God commands, a few times, for people (female virgins) to be taken as slaves and war plunder! (Num. 31:31-36) Where is the justice? Where is the love?

The word is already defined. YOU just don’t like the way it is defined, and seek to, like others have, change what the Bible says to better suit your opinions of what you THINK the bible SHOULD say. The fact is, however, the Bible is very clear on slavery and on how a slave should be treated. The fact is, that the Bible allows it at all is enough reason to put the book down and disregard it as the work of a loving God. Because no loving, just God would ever allow it.

So it’s okay to beat them close to death, but because they’re property, we can’t kill them? So whipping them every day, three times a day is okay, as long as they don’t die from it? These are the guidelines your Bible tells us is okay. The verse is mentioned above. Stop lying and trying to sugar-coat reality, I’m smarter then you.

But the fact is, slavery existed and the Bible, supposedly a book that contains some sort of moral authority, condones it! The Bible also has rules for women being made war plunder, by order from God, and the Bible also tells us to kill all those who are not of our faith. Heck, you really want to go this route? Let’s go all out, then. Here’s a list of verses that we should all follow (God commands you!) for the betterment of our society. This is in your perfect book, in your moral authority!

Leviticus 20:9, "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." Couldn't we try like, spanking the kid first? How about that?

Leviticus 24:16, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." (Little bit of an ego problem there, god?)

In Numbers 1:51, 3:10, 3:38, God shows us how hospitable he is when he says "The stranger that cometh nigh (to a specific event mentioned - ed) shall be put to death."

Numbers 5:2-4, "Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel." What ever happened to trying to help the sick instead of just abandoning them to the wild? One can only imagine the heartbreak of having to expell your own mother or father, grandfather or favorite aunt and unlc esimply because they are sick, and watching them wander off without help from the world, and all because god says so.

Numbers 14:18, "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." One can only imagine what it would be like to be hauled away for a bank robbery your great great great grandfather did generations ago. ...Wait a tic, wasn't there something about children not being held accountable for their fathers crimes somewhere in the old testament as well? Ah right, here it is: Deut. 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Well this is just darn confusing!

The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. Numbers 15:32-36, "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses." And most of us drive daily on saturdays (and sundays). Poor guy, too bad he wasn't born just a few thousand years later, when people didn't kill somebody because they thought some ancient words in a holy book told them so....we don't believe in a jealous god anymore that demands an entire nation of people to be exterminated and destroyed along with all of their religious symbols and possessions. (Num. 33:50-52)

Oh, right. Heh, I guess I was wrong. We still do that!

1. 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
2. 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
3. Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
   From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
4. By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]
5. Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
   In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
6. In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
   Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
   The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:

   "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."

   Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
   To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.

7. In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
   For quite some time I heard only rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
   Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:

   "Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
   According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
   In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]

   More recently the BBC aired:

   Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide
   BBC NEWS April 19, 1998

   A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994...

I guess it's true what the Bible says, "All nations shall be terrorized by the followers of Yahweh." (Deut. 2:25) I guess they were all just following God's example. Because remember: If you worship the wrong god, God will get jealous and kill you. (Deut. 6:15) And God will kill those who hate him. (Deut. 7:10) After all, we are commanded by God to Kill those of other faiths. (Deut. 12:30, 17:2-7)

And of course, if your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." (Deut. 13:6-10)

If you hear of a city where another god is worshiped, then destroy everyone in the city (even the cattle) and burn it down. Watch out Salt Lake, Seatle and countless other cities all across the world who aren't of a Christian sect! (And even if you are, be careful...after all, if you follow a different version of Christianity, you can still be targets from other Christians!) (Deut. 13:12-16)

Oh, and I have more things we should apply to real life use.

We should kill people who murmur, like God threatens to do. [To which the people reply, "Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish .... Shall we be consumed with dying?" (Numbers 17:12-13)]

It's unfortunate that we cannot harden people’s hearts or force their minds to do something just so we can have the fun of killing them for disobeying us, even though we made them disobey. Then we could be just like God, when he hardened the heart of the king of Heshbon just so that he could have him and all of his people killed. (Deut. 2:30)

If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." (Deut. 22:23-24)

I suppose there are more, but heck, by the time we get these worked into laws, and real life, there may not be enough people to kill to really appease God anymore - and thus we will all die anyway because God will get mad. Sad really. Eh, so be it, right?

OKay, one more. That's it I promise.

If you don't obey all of the laws that are given in the Old Testament, God shower you with the curses that are given in the next 52 verses. (Deut. 28:16-68)

And yes, this is all in your Bible. This is supposed to be your moral authority! This is what the Bible condones – in fact it commands - and this is exactly what the point of this discussion was. It seems to have gone over your head completely, or you just want to focus on the irrelevant points and ad hoc your way out of this troubling position you found yourself in.

You are mistaking two things. The first is a slave, and the second is a Jewish servant. The two are not the same. A slave was from another nation, not from the Jewish society. They were outsiders who when captured or taken as war plunder were beaten, bruised and disciplined to do exactly what their masters wanted. A Jewish servant, however, was simply an indentured servant, who worked for only five years to pay off a debt. You can re-read Leviticus for this information, if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.

Your misunderstanding of this is not surprising given the rest of your putrid diatribe. You may be respectful, I’ll give you that, but you’re not as learned as you think you are. Go back to studying.

You really don’t read the Bible, ever, do you? The answer to this question is clearly YES. The above proves that times over.

Paul is not God. Far from it. And all Paul did was command Onesimus to do his bidding in another manner that would serve Paul more usefully. Paul, himself in prison, would do little with a slave. He clearly sent Onesimus out to do his work FOR him, as explained further down that chapter, which again you ignored or didn’t know about. (Another Bible Gateway search?) Phil. 1:13, “whom I desired to keep with me, that on your behalf he might serve me in my chains for the Good News.”

His poetic rephrasing of what Onesimus is about to do does not change anything, simply makes it poetry. A spade is still a spade. And your use of a non-sequitor is annoying me. Tell me again why you’d follow up with Paul after asking a question about God you failed to answer?

They were still right, you nimrod. The slavers of the south and the members of the KKK, although Bigots, were not misled in their interpretations. The Bible is clear on slavery, it accepts it and condones it, and regardless of their retardedness, they were accurate. That itself is one of the many reasons people like me disregard the Bibvle as primitive and amoral. Because, d’uh, it is.

Not according to your Bible.

That’s because atheism isn’t a religion you twit. It’s a lack of religion. In fact, it’s a lack of god. The only thing one atheist has to have in common with another atheist is that lack of belief in a God or Gods (god or gods). That is the joy of being able to think freely, and not be confined by religious dogma and doctrine that, as proven above, is nothing more then primitive babbling and begats, begats, begats….

Speaks volumes of what you know, again…

The phrase “for them that defile themselves with mankind” is one long, drawn out line of bullshit added in by the translators again. That WHOLE line is only one word in Greek: αρσενοκοιταις or arsenokoites. The English is “sodomite.” In fact, that is a direct correlation with homosexuality. As a sodomite is somebody who sleeps with another person of the same sex. As defined in the Greek. Learn some Greek, for goodness sake! See the truth behind the lies.

Again, you with the misunderstandings! Correcting your mistakes is going to give me finger-cramps! “Nor abusers of themselves with mankind” is again one long bullshit phrase in replace of arsenokoites. Again, sodomites. Paul is clearly against homosexuality. Clearly. He uses the same word for the same act, over and over. Translators don’t like the way it’s phrased (again, this is supposed to be a morally sound book!) so they alter the meaning to appease the reader. Just like you are trying to do. The Bible already says what it wanted to say…changing that only makes you dishonest. Admit the Bible for what it is – a ridiculous, amoral and primitive book.

Actually, by replacing homosexuality with one, long, drawn-out bullshit phrase really damages your credibility and your argument.

It’s truly ashame YOU didn’t write the Bible, then isn’t? The fact is, your opinion is irrelevant, especially in light of the evidence bearing down on you.

No, but it does tell us to KILL them. Twit.

Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

You can’t get more direct then that!

Except…it did, and I agree that it’s wrong. Of course it’s wrong! Nobody deserves unfair treatment! But let’s face it, the Bible is full of such things. In fact, the following things are subjective to IMMEDIATE execution in the bible (In other words, you commit one of these acts, and you die):

1. (a) striking your father or mother (Ex.21:15);
2. (b) kidnapping (Ex. 21:6 RSV);
3. (c) cursing your father or mother (Ex. 21:17 RSV, Lev. 20:9);
4. (d) touching a mountain (Ex. 19:12 RSV);
5. (e) allowing your ox to gore someone (Ex. 21:29);
6. (f) lying with a beast (Ex. 22:19) RSV, Lev. 20:15-16);
7. (g) sacrificing to other gods (Ex. 22:20 RSV);
8. (h) failing to observe the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15);
9. (i) drinking strong drinks while in the tabernacle (Lev. 10:9);
10. (j) committing adultery (Lev. 20:10 RSV, Deut. 22:22);
11. (k) lying with your father's wife (Lev. 20:11 RSV);
12. (l) lying with your daughter-in-law (Lev. 20:12 RSV);
13. (m) committing homosexual acts (Lev. 20:13 RSV);
14. (n) being a medium or a wizard (Lev. 20:27 RSV);
15. (o) being a witch (Ex. 22:18);
16. (p) being a priest's daughter and becoming a whore (Lev. 21:9 RSV);
17. (q) Blaspheming the name of the Lord (Lev. 24:16);
18. cursing (Lev. 24:14 RSV);
19. (s) coming near the priesthood (Num. 3:10);
20. (t) being a stranger who comes near the congregation's tabernacle (Num. 3:8);
21. (u) gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-35);
22. (v) serving or worshipping other gods (Deut. 17:2-5 RSV);
23. (w) showing contempt for the Lord's priest or judge (Deut. 17:12 NIV);
24. (x) failing to obey one's parents (Deut. 21:18-21);
25. (y) not being a virgin on your wedding day (Deut. 22:20-21 NIV);
26. (z) being a betrothed virgin who did not cry out when seduced (Deut. 22:23-24);
27. (aa) having relations with your wife and her mother (Lev. 20:14);
28. (bb) telling people to seek other gods (Deut. 13:2,5); and
29. (cc) being a false prophet (Deut. 18:20).

And these are God's rules. Imagine living in that era!

Only in ideology. Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and many many others would disagree with you. What about the Christian Soldiers movement? It has pictures of soldiers holding GUNS on it’s website…for KIDS! Obviously, something went amiss in translation, don’t you think?

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, said it well: "If there be any mistake in the Bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth." (Journal, Wed., July 24, 1776). It becomes nothing more than another book on the shelf. Indeed, your book has failed every moral, scientific and ethical test known to man. It fails at history, geography and chronology. And some of your most sacred ideas like the death of Jesus are in question..within the BOOK ITSELF! In Acts, Jesus is said to have been hung from a tree. How does one explain that contradiction? And trust me, the Greek adds up on that one too.

Go back to studying.

Thanks Rook, One of the goals of Anti-neocons is to also inform people of the fallacies of religion, however, there seems to be more and more xtians that are caught up in disinformation wars being passed through there. So any help from you guys and I mean ANYONE here would be appreciated. My main goal at AN is the church/state information, divestment, etc.....

Some of you may not agree with AN (I could name 1 person..hahaha) however, if anyone wants to go there to dispell and debunk any religious arguments feel free to do so, even anonymously.
Thanks

A moment to comment on the ridiculous idea that christianity is about forgiveness and love. It simply isn't true, at least not that can be proven from the Bible. Christianity is about God, period. People are simply instruments of his divine plan, easily discarded whenever the divine winds of whim blow differently.

Consider Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

At no point is there a consideration for Paul's choice or his life or goals, it is all about the substitutionary living of his life for Christ's. Paul, for all intents and purposes, CEASES TO EXIST as an individual.

Consider John 9:39
Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world..."

There is another verse but it escapes me (rook can probably help here) discussing the fact that all the world is created to show the majesty and power of God.

The problem here is one of verse-ology, to use a non-word. Indeed, later on in John 13, the NIV has Jesus contradicting what he said in john 9, saying that he didn't come into the world to judge. One can look anywhere in the Bible, pick up a verse and run with it, as there are so many translations and ways of phrasing, any type of ideology can be justified. This is also problematic of THE greek, which is a misnomer, as the greek translations and language being used today simply isn't what was used in the time of the writing of the new testament documents and as such some meaning may/probably have been lost.

The solution is simply not to get into conversations like this. Rook's exposition is absolutely amazing, a virtual cornucopia of facts that staggers the mind. However, it simply won't phase anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of apologetics. Remember that to the believer, it is by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that knowledge of god is given and that through the holy scriptures. You as an unbeliever will simply be viewed as being incapable of understanding truly the TRUTH's of the HOLY WORD.

The other tactic here is to get to the underlying problem and ask whether the Bible is a legitimate ethical treatise itself, not by example, but by ideological stance. Quoting chapter and verse is only going to get the conversation bogged down in hermeneutical web-spinning. About the only thing that can be done with the Bible is point out how other theologians/believers have contradictory positions on the Biblical verses and thus show how interpretation has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with one's preconceived notions.

An excellent book for all concerned here is James Barr's "Fundamentalism." (it's out of print but it can be found)The author is a believer, but by no stretch of the imagination is he a fundamentalist and his arguments strongly prove the fact that nobody actually believes the Bible itself, only their interpretation of it, handed down to them by tradition, family and their own construction.

I alwasy misspell too..I just don't have time to proofread and my mind does think faster than my fingers.

Precisely my point. The essence of christianity is the will of god, which has nothing to do with man as anything more than an instrument for the edification and glory of the cosmic narcissist.

Love and forgiveness are a modern intepretive device to answer the rise in liberalism in the west. I hardly consider the middle ages and the fire and brimstone preaching of the south as being full of love. Man is sinful and deserves death, which is his lot. The "forgiveness" of god has to do with severly twisted justice, not love for god is incapable of loving anything but himself, as the sole source of perfection in the universe.

Rook Hawkins - RRS Co-Founder (Ancient Texts Expert) from Team page...Are you kidding me?

Rook, I believe you know very little about ancient Biblical texts. If I were a Christian and I was debating an Atheist, I wouldn't use any book by Josh McDowell unless I wanted to get my ass kicked in the debate. Why do you use it? There are many better sources.

The KJV is a literal translation, but known to less reliable than other translations based on more ciritcal texts. The NASB is closets to the UBS 4 editon of the Greek and Nestle-Aland 27. Which greek text is the KJV closest to?

Let's be honest. You are not an expert on Ancient biblical texts and definitely not an authority. It may be more honest to change you title from Rook to Ancient text Rookie.

No, but I can honestly say you must be one big joke, being that you have 4 posts on this forum, and they are all directed at ridiculing me. Trust me when I say that insulting my personality won't change a thing about the facts.

Your beliefs here are pretty irrelevant aren't they, now? Don't answer that, that was rhetorical.

Because McDowell and Stuart, and Archer, and a number of others have many followers, and sell many books, and are some of the leading apologetical authors around. I agree they suck. Then again, most Christians DO use horrible logic when trying to defend the Bible.

Had you actually bothered to read the thread, you'd note that the KJV relied heavily on the Codex Alexandrinus, dating to the fifth century, according to apologetics. I am not debating as to which version is reliable.

In fact, again, more evidence to the fact that you didn't read, I stated, "Really? In the KJV? The one version of the Bible which has undergone more changes and additions and "corrections" to problems then any other version in the entire history of versions of the bible!"

That pretty much shows my disgust for such versions, but it is the most widely used version. McDowell and Stuart ironically agree with you about the NASB, the same apologetic you criticized earlier. Apparently he's worth something.

It's readily apparent you wouldn't know honesty if it somehow became anthropomorphic and bit you in the ass.

Keep on truckin' brother. Hey, you think maybe next time you can be just a little more picky and irrelevant and go after the really, really insignificant stuff? I mean, I don't want you to strain yourself so badly that you get headaches, I know how little I gave you to work with in ways of insulting me.

And welcome to the forums.

I agree that insulting your personality won't change the facts. If I did any insulting, it was your facts and arguments more than your personality.

I was resonding more to this point:

What are your sources for saying the KJV relies heavily on the Codex Alexandrinus? Most sources I read tell me that the KJV relies heavily on the Byzantine Family MSS which are considered to be less reliable than the major codices including Codex Alexandrinus. So reading the thread to find more incorrect information? Is that what you wanted me to find?

I'm a bit baffled. From my experience, it is only Christian fundamentalist who defend the KJV as the recommended text to read. I never thought I would hear an Atheist recommend it. In fact there seems to be a consensus among scholars that the KJV and the NKJV are some of the worst translations.

So are you an Ancient text expert who is careless with facts? This is not meant to be insulting. I think you are making us look bad with your poor fact checking.

Sapient, I agree that Rook had many insults in his post and his condescending attitude he could do well to lose. I'll watch myself as well.

What I find interesting is when Rook begins with his condescending attitude like he did a few times in the 4 hour discussion with Stephen and his facts are wrong. So he tries to build this mounting evidence which has inaccuracies in it (some of which I have already pointed out), then he pours on the condescension and then he makes statements that he has provided evidence. In reality all he has done is make himself and rational responders look sloppy and less than rational.

I'm interested in seeing him get better especially if your shows are nationally and internationally accessible. I don't want him to continue to make us look bad. Please...can you at least admonish him to do his homework? Thank you.

This type of dishonesty is not welcome here. I'm deducing it's mere dishonesty and not retardation because you do exhibit signs of intellect, however that last statement was completely dishonest. I never commented on Rooks conduct, and that was blatantly obvious.

Yup, that's what I said.

All of this ridicule is coming after I just warned you to stop ridiculing without the facts to back up your ridicule, none of which exist in this post. This post was completely unnecessary and served no positive purpose and your intent is clear. Here is a tidbit from our new rules we are working on in the back room:

I haven't seen you on the correct side of the improving site/obliterating site line yet. Get on the correct side, quick. This serves as a second warning.

Me too, myself as well. We are on a never ending quest to be better than the day we were before.

You make us look bad. I wouldn't worry about him, worry about you. Furthermore, I am not buying this "us" claim... got a bridge I can refuse to buy?

I have a 7+ year history with Rook as a best friend, I know him well enough to know that he does his homework, I also know that I have no need to tell him to do more. I see Rook is on a never ending pursuit for more knowledge and is constantly striving to learn more. Not that any of this is any of your business, especially considering your atrocious conduct so far on this site.

Do you really think that your posts are helpful?

If you have something substantive to say, say it, and stick to that.

Let your argument speak for themselves.

Actually, he corrected a few of your own misreadings, and you just ignored them..... so your complaint appears disengenuous.

Hardly a few. I was being facetious...for the record.

Which specific corrections are you speaking of?

Incidentally, I'm listening to that show again right now.

Sigh.