A few quick points I could think up.

a) He's reading the English version of the bible, possible translational problems with the whole sphere in space thing.

b) "God stretched out the heavens like a canopy"...sure, says space is stretching... still compares it to a flat covering, not an enveloping space.

c) "Earth hanging in nothing" Technically, space is full of stuff. Kind of a week argument, I admit.

d) There is a whole lot of evidence that the middle east flooded at some point... good chance the Noah story could very well be true... but not pertaining to the entire earth, and doesn't mean God actually told him to build it. Hell, if you looked up and saw it raining for like months, would that be "God telling you to build a boat"? 

I get ya there.  However, I was very critical about Bible translations and how they translated scriptures when I was searching for the answers.  There's over 23 English Translations for sure.  Most likely many more, but 23 that i know of.  I've done the research on many questionable translation issues into English.  This one in particular literally translates as a sphere hanging or set on nothing or absence. 

Well, it's meant to be a metaphorical understanding of something we could not possibly grasp as a flesh human being.  Also, canopy's tend to take the shape of whatever they are covering, not always flat.

When God said he would flood the Earth to Noah, as far as Noah understood, the middle east was the whole Earth.  I'm figuring if God said, 'I'm flooding just the x mile radius around where you and the people live' Noah wouldn't have taken the mission with as much urgency.  Most undispensationalized Christians will agree with this understanding.   

Good points, well made.  I appreciate your input.  By all means challenge my response.  I'm not here to prove people wrong, but more so to confirm my understanding to be true.  I'm not a know-it-all, nor will I ever claim to be, but I have done hardcore research because of the way I came into this understanding.  Long story, and we'll leave it at that unless someone asks for more details.  

Thank you

What's up everyone?  Why no comments or reprecussions about this video?  Keep in mind this is definitely demoting an athiest's understanding of God.  Please defend your understanding.  

This tactic of "My book(incert religion here) proves that my deity(incert deity here) is real because it matches up with science" has been thoroughly thumped and debunked time after time.

I once had a Muslim say, "This verse talks about mountains moving so therefore Muhammed knew about plate techtonics". No, it means whoever put together the Quran was aware of earthquakes. So big woopdie doo. I am quite sure hurricains happened in the ancient Hindu world but no Muslim or Christian would believe in Vishnu because if their holy books talked about "a giant swirling storm" as being knowlege of what a hurrican is and what causes it.

Any 5 year old can look up at the sky and say, "The sky is blue" but does that mean that that 5 year old knows WHY?

Nowhere in the bible does it talk about planets other than the earth and only refures to the moon and "stars". Falsely calls the moon a seperate source of light and never mentions galaxies which were mistaken by the righters as being stars and the writers didnt see the even just stars as being equal to the sun which today we know is true.

So it confuses galaxies for stars and the moon as a sepreate source of light and not the reflection of sunbeems which we now know today to be the case.

Christians, Muslims, Jews and scientologists all use junk science fiction to prop up their myths and none of these books are scientific by any means.

Making a "NO DUH" statement doesnt mean you know why something is or why it happens. 

Holy books are nothing to base science on. They are just stories people wrote because they liked the idea of having a hero. 

Well, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but most of us don't have time to watch every video that comes along.  As you know, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of them.

Why don't you tell us, in your own words, what the video says.  I'm sure you can present it in a nice, concise way so that we can read it in a few seconds as opposed to watching a video that says something we've already heard.

Better yet, check out this forum, where odds are, your video, or one like it, has already been debunked.  When you're done with that, (it will take a while, trust me... Rook's nothing if not thorough!) check out this forum where you can see that Jesus most likely never lived!

If, after reading through all of that, you're still convinced that this video is something we've not seen before, we'd love to hear in your own words how it's different.

Actually, history shows that Muhammed actually got most of his ideas from Biblical scripture and therefore got the idea from the Bible.  His original idea was actually to show the Jews Christianity using a different approach.  He eventually changed some words around here and there and lost some meaning.  That's in the history books too.   

why would planets and galaxies have to be mentioned in the bible?  The bible doesn't mention anything about a lot of things we know about today, like mosquitos or Northern Lights.  I guess that means the bible's false.  You're right, I should throw it out right now.

I  guess my question would be, 'Why would that kind of information be written in the bible?'  A lot of details about the world, or even details of stories written within the books were taken out because if it wasn't, the book would be a rediculus size.  "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written"  John 21:25

The moon as a seperate source of light is partially true because it does in fact provide light, however, note too that it's also metaphorical as a "source" of light because as we all know, the moons light is actually reflected from the sun.    The bible does that a lot. 

You can deny the sciences if you want to, but I'd like to point out that I am in no way basing science on the Bible.  I'm rather basing Biblical claims on scientific proof.  You will find, if you look at the history, that most other religions that have radical claims similar to the Biblical claims, actually got their information from the Bible.  Think it's fluff??? I challenge you to look it up.  Suggested reading could be "The next Christiandom" by Philip Jenkins.   Just to cancel out any assumption of personal opinion or "religious" bias, he notes 407 sources to his claims.  

So all religions plagiarized ancient myths? Doesn't really help their credibility. 

well, I'd have to say, the time it would take you to read my explanation of the video, you could have watched it, it's less than 5 minutes.  I've taken the time for someone, by listening to a little more than half of "theism is irrational".  I don't have time either, but I'm on this site because I make time for interresting conversation.  If I truely didn't have the time for any of this, I wouldn't be talking to you right now.  

i don't take it the wrong way.  I know people get busy.  It's been quite the busy summer for me.  

I do have to say however, the references you gave me will take me quite the while to get through, so I'm not sure when I will actually be able to get back to you about whether the topics in this video were debunked or not.  I know there's a lot of science I've presented on here and other places that has yet to be successfully debunked.  Anyone can come up with excuses, but when it comes down to it, the evidence is what counts.   

I'm also here to talk to people.  I truely don't have the time to be looking through all the conversations on this site, but by people filling me in as I go, I've learned where people are at.  Who knows, many of the conversations I've had may have happened here many times before, but for the people I've been talking to, and myself, it was the first time or unique enough to be different and interresting to persue.  

As a final note as well, you might find out by discussing the video that I myself have raised an eyebrow at some things in this video.   

No, it really doesn't. I can't actually say "all religions" because I really don't know that, but from what I've read from "The Next Christiandom", many of the larger religions out there today did either take their ideas from Biblical scriptures, OR was originally from a christian origin and distorted the idea of what Chrsitianity is about to the extent of making a whole new religion. There's one of many reasons why I as a Chistian claim to "hate" religion;
It separates people, everyone thinks their own is right, it causes bloodshed for no legitimate reason. Hatred abounds and rules their lives. I can't say that people out there who claim to be Christian don't do that, but I can say that the Bible does not "TEACH" that.

also, like you said, their "plagerism" really hurts their credibility. Be it that the Biblical scriptures are considered some of the oldest texts out there, I doubt you'll find plagerism in the Bible. heh... unless of course you consider the books within the bible taking ideas from themselves, but then again, they are usually explaining from the idea to emphasize the topic.

The bible teaches Unity when they seperate themselves, It teaches to continuously test yourself to make sure you know what you know is right, they just assume. People Kill others because of their "different beliefs"... uh... does "thou shall not kill" ring a bell????? They hate when the bible teaches to love.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

The concepts that the Scriptures teach were old when the writers were young. They claim them as theri original thoughts, thus plagiarism.

Where does "thou shalt not kill" fit in where God was asking that entire cities and races of people were to be offered as a burnt offerings to him? (destuction of Jericho, wiping out the Amalekites, etc)

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]

The arguments presented in the video are extremely weak.

He begins with his "bible science." First, it is important to point out that every discovery made by science was actually made by people. So, the idea that a person could think that, for example, the world is a sphere is hardly surprising considering that the first person to think so was in fact a person.

So, the first quote is the whole "God sits above the sphere of the earth and stretches out the heavens." First of all, God can hardly sit above the earth if it's a sphere, as there is no top (which is why in many bibles it's translated as 'circle' ). Second, to stretch the heavens like a tent for us to live in suggests that we're covered by it, which is incredibly misleading. Like a rorschach test, it's only there if you think it's there first.

Second, the part about pulling the northern skies over empty space would only make sense if they covered empty space. They don't, they cover the north. Also, the earth is NOT suspended over nothing. For the earth to be suspended there would have to be an up and a down, but without gravity, there is neither. If anything, the earth is suspended over the sun, and the bible certainly doesn't say that.

Then he goes onto Noah's Ark, showing a site that has already been debunked. (see here).
For the other stories he doesn't give any references. The images he shows on his video are from christian websites that also don't give any details or supporting evidence.

Oh, the most laughable part is the "stone struck in half" as if there aren't hundreds of stones that have been worn away by erosion. Water erosion is by far the leading factor in the process of turning boulders into gravel.

Finally the prophecies. Talkorigins has a nice little section on prophecies here.

Basically there's nothing in the prophecies that you or I could not duplicate. Lots of people were born in Bethleham. Lots of people were sold. There's no evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin. There's no evidence that he rose from the dead. (and since when were there "billions" of arabs?).

The video present nothing that in any way suggested that the bible is anything more than a work of fiction incoporating real places and people.

well, none of the scripture writers actually claimed the writings to be "their orignal thoughts" They always claimed them to be the "Word of God"

Also, Moses did not have an origin of teaching to go by when the commandments came about as far as scripture is concerned. Granted there was a code of ethics, but it was of course nothing like the commandments. Take note there were many more than just 10 commandments. The Catholic Church decided at some point to "pick the important ones"... I'm pretty sure it was the Catholic church.... anyway, Any scripture written after Moses' time of course based their basic teachings off the commandments and teachings of Moses. The reasoning is because though times change, the laws are always based on the commandments and laws of Moses.

Look at it this way, If there is plagerism, then God stole his own ideas... and I guess decided not to sue himself after all this time.

It should be noted that the 2 examples you have given are situations where there was a people against God and his people. The Amalekites are a perfect example of a people who were constantly against God's people and would kill them.

The destruction of Jericho was because the land was promised to the Isrealites, and of course, the King of Jericho didn't want anything to do with that. BTW, they were warned not to build Jericho in the first place.

A better explanation of at least the battle at Jericho comes from my Zondervan NASB;

"Many readers of Joshua (and other OT books) are deply troubled by the role that warfare plyas in this account of God's dealings with His people. Not a few relieve their ethical scrples by ascribing the author's perspective to a pre-Christian (and sub-Christian) stage of moral development that the Christian, in the light of Christ's teaching, must repudiate and transcend. Hence the main thread of the narrative line of Joshua is an offense to them.

It must be remembered, however, that the book of Joshua does not address itself to the abstract ethical question of war as a means for gaining human ends. It can only be understood in the context of the history of redemption unfolding in the Pentateuch, with its interplay of divine grace and judgement. Of that story it is the direct continuation."

To put that in simpler terms, God is not violating the "thou shall not kill" law with his people becasue that law applies to the killing for humanistic ends, be it a murder as we'd see it. e.g. we don't see our soldiers in Iraq, many of them whom have killed someone first hand, as murderers. Though we do see the guy down the street who shot that kid because he wouldn't give him all his money as a murderer. That's what the law, "Thou shall not kill" was applying to.

The history of redemption is noted to be the fact that all those stories of God's people declaring war on others, or taking others out was becasue those people were going against God and his laws in one way or another. Sodom is a good example of a nightmare city. People were so immoral they were raping everyone they could see. People who came to visit the town were to be dragged out to the center of town and raped by all who were there, male or female. That's just the surface of their nature. That's why Sodom was seen to be a place that needed to be destroyed. They had lost all sence of moralty and common curtousy for their fellow neighbor.

 [MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]

In that sense, it's important to understand that everything we understand and know today is something that was viewed and understood to be by a persons perspective whether it be true or not.  I could use that same arguement for the person who first thought the Earth was flat.  He could imperically prove it too by pointing to the horizon and asking the fatal question "what's beyond that"?  Without personal experience, no one could say the Earth curved.  So was it first thought to be round, or flat? and who decided it would change and why? what proof did they have?  why did people agree with them?  

Also good to note that science is a humanistic way of explaning things we would otherwise not understand or know about.  We are information seekers and must know the answers to everything, if we don't know, we have to find out or we will go nuts.  It's a human comfort blanky if you will.  

Explain why the bible should explain that?  Keep in mind scientific understanding like we have today was not there back then.   Things would have to be expained in a way that the people fo the time would understand. 

I couldn't expain to you how a hot air baloon floats by displacement of air if you have never heard of the concept, nor seen a hot air balloon before.  Though i could explain it as the air acting like a pillow around the balloon keeping it aloft.  Same idea, a bit of an analogy thrown in.  Because this God of the Bible is so beyond our understanding, things need to be simplified for us flesh beings.  

I'm glad someone finally is giving good logical feedback on this video.  I agree with the whole Noah's Ark claim.  It's fluff.  I didn't need to see another site to figure that out either.  The crosses on the wood slabs gave that away.  I guess I would wonder why the cross was a symbol used by noah when the cross was not understood as any symbol of anything until Christ.   Just a thought.

yea, the stone one is a new one to me.  I agree with you too, however, he didn't say that it was just another stone that was "worn away by erosion"  He said the discovery showed that this particular stone was worn away as if the water came from within it.  I'd have to research that claim a little bit more myself, but if what he says is true, then it is different than the other millions of stones out there with erosion evidence.  

Yea, um... checked out that link, first red flag for me was the source; "The Watchtower and Tract Society".  You may not be aware of that source, but that's the Jehovah's Witnesses, not Christians.  They are a sect like the mormons.  They have strange twisted understandings of scripture that have been blatently debunked.  Very bad source.  Also, most of that page was opinion without much fact to back it up.

The one fact they tried to bring out was; "  Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13)." 

That was a nice effort, but it just proves what can happen when you dont' read the whole story.  God was talking about a specific moment, not always and forever.  See Joshua 24:11 in the bible.  You will see that the reference was actually talking about the battle at Jericho.  

Ok, so then you could set your fate up in such a way that you could; "Have no stately form or majesty...nor appearence that we should be attracted to him"  Isaiah 53:2, then be, "Peirced through for our transgressions...crushed for our iniquities...chastened for our well-being."  Isaiah 53:5.  Jesus was peirced on the cross, and beaten to beyond recognition for talking about the Gosple.   

There are also prophesies of Jesus healing people who were sick and bringing some back from the dead.  Tell me how you are to fulfill those prophesies yourself.  also note that it is said by many non-believers that the prophesies that were said and supposedly came true in the new testiment could not have been done by one man in his whole lifetime.  

Also, was it not you that said "every discovery made by science was actually made by people".  Well, these events were observed by people who recorded them.  The stories were told by many people whom did not know each other.  Somehow the stories were the same.  I guess if we can't believe them, then we cannot believe science either be it science is only something that someone has told is to be true.  

You are incorrect. Science is most certainly not "only something that someone has told is to be true." You and I are capable of verifying these claims for ourself. You can prove the earth is rotating with a simple pendulum. You can calculate the radius of the earth using the length of shadows in two different places at two different times.

The most amusing part of this sentence is that the horizon actually supports the spherical earth claim. If the earth were flat, you would be able to take a telescope and see everything on the earth (or at least as far as the closest mountain). The very fact that something can disappear over the horizon proves that at a certain distance there is no longer line of sight. How could this exist except on a spherical earth? You don't need to believe an ancient story to see for yourself that this is true.

The claim in the video was that the bible contained factual information about the universe. The information in the bible is incorrect. The fact that it reflects beliefs at the time only supports the claim that it was not "inspired."

Keeping in mind, of course, that one common form of water erosion involves water seeping into small crevices in the stone, freezing during the night, thereby expanding and enlarging said cracks. This way water can break a stone from the inside out.

Um... the quote was taken from that source was "The Bible contains many prophecies that have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source." which was definitely one of the arguments made in the video.

How many people were peirced on the cross? Lots. There are other people on these boards with a lot more knowledge of jesus than me, and they'll be better prepared to answer these questions.

The fact that the bible says that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies the bible made is not a convincing argument. I could write a book in which I predict my own future, and I'm sure that I could fulfill lots of my own prophecies.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes. Please people. The preview button is your friend!]

Absolutely... but how am I suppose to know that the swinging pendulum means the Earth is rotating unless someone told me that's why it moves like it does? I could just as easily guess there was a magnetic force, e.g. magnetic north that's manipulating it. Same with the shadows. As far as I can see, the sun is moving, not the Earth.

The point of the statement was to say that, though we can imperically prove something through science, someone still had to tell you how to get to that conclusion or why their process of reaching that conclusion proves thusly.

...but I've never been out there to see any land disappear over the horizon. All I know is that anyone who's ever taken a boat to the horizon has fallen off the side!!! My telescope is not that technologically advanced yet!

Point being, it was (understood by the people of the time), intellegent, logical thinkers that came to the conclusion that the Earth is flat. Though supporting your claim, they obviously didn't do much reading.

I never said it "reflects beliefs at the time". I said

"scientific understanding like we have today was not there"

Why should I explain to you how to timetravel through a wormhole if you have no comprehension, understanding of what I'm talking about or means of using the information given to you. If God told them all we know about the universe today, they would try to tell others and others would ask for proof. Proof of which they then would not have. It was beyond their comprehension. The bible was written so people of all times could "understand and comprehend" what it was saying.

Right... but the issue wasn't that the stone was cracked, the issue seems to be the source of the water. Science can show how the water came into the rock and erroded it. The claim of this one was that the water "seemed to have come from within the rock". Not from the outside, seeping in, and cracking it by freezing.

ok, and the quote from scripture I believe debunked the claim that prophesies have in fact come true. As far as I know, all that were suppose to have come true by now have. Please show me otherwise.

...and I do hope those others with more knowlege do write on this blog.

To add to your question "how many people were peirced on the cross? Lots." I would like to mention that just as many people who were hanged on the crosses had their bones either broken before they were taken down, or broken before or during the crucifixtion process. Another prophesy was that none of Jesus' bones would be broken. John 19:36. Psalm 34:20, one of the reference verses is specifically referencing to perfection in a human who follows God. Jesus was considered the perfect human, thus not a bone can be broken for that to hold true.

Of course you could, but you'd be the only one to claim what you wrote. Others of the time claimed the same thing, and they didn't know the writers of the Bible. History proves those claims from others.

Also, those were pretty radical claims to be making about Jesus' own future. He must have been quite the Houdini.

[MOD EDIT - fixed more quotes]

er... either that or the fact that the Bible states that God's always the same.  Exodus 3:14.  "I AM"  in the greek is a word that represents past, present, and future.  We have no such word in English.  But it's showing that God is was and will be the same as he always was.  The thoughts of God are originally his.  Where did origniality come from except from God.  As far as we are concerned and a good portion of history, his "original" ideas are always aplicable.  

To say it's not inspired is to say that the new parts, were not true, or did not come true if they were prophesies. 

there were original references to each NEW story.  To claim no originality in the Bible because of the references would be to claim any thesis referencing to anything is not original because it used information from another source.  

er... um... well... um... yea!  He is God, but that's not really what I was saying either.  God is considered perfect because he doesn't contradict himself by going against his own law.  Please recheck the soldiers not murderers/killers paragraph.   

This seems a very subjective approach to a very specific commandment. The idea of "thou shall not kill unless you are given divine command to do so" is based on the belief in divinity in the first place. In order to give this idea any credence one must already believe that there is a god, which I don't.

The soldier example gives us the "thou shall not kill unless you have a good reason" commandment. I understand that in order for a society to exist it must be willing to inflict harm on those that would see it destroyed. We live in a natural world and we are quite mortal so the idea of "turn the other cheek" is cute but not really helpful in reality. So, if we kill for this good reason have we still not killed? The biblical examples of mass killing are not killing?

I don't generally engage in bible errancy discussions because one side is saying it's true based on the fact that they already believe in god while the other side is saying that parts of it are historically accurate but that has no baring on the fanciful magical parts of the bible (which is what the belief in god is based on). The people that wrote the bible could be right about a zillion things that exist naturally in the world but that would lend zero credence to the idea of super-wizards, zombies, and invisible men in the sky that watch you while you masturbate. 

well, let's put it another way then.  I guess I'd have to revert the question back to you in this way;

Let's look at the Laws of the United States.  Someone has blatently killed another in a state that supports the death penalty.  The Judge sentences this person to death by electricution.  Now... In order for this sentencing to be carried out.  Somone is going to have to pull the trigger.  Now I ask you the question you asked me.  Is the person who pulled the trigger a murderer?  If you answer yes, then he is no better than the person who was sentenced to die for murdering someone on the street.  If you answer no, then I think this clarifies the justification in the Bible. 

Just a side note too. you mentioned,

"I understand that in order for a society to exist it must be willing to inflict harm on those that would see it destroyed". 

The mass killings in the bible, if you read the whole story, were for just that reason.  Sodom for example was basically destroying itself along with any person who came within its walls.  

Caposkia wrote:

"The mass killings in the bible, if you read the whole story, were for just that reason.  Sodom for example was basically destroying itself along with any person who came within its walls.  "

Sodom and Gomorrah was God killing people for being how He made them - God seems to dig that kind of thing.

On your death penalty analogy - yes, two murders were committed (one was sanctioned by the government, the other was not)

Basically your argument still comes down to "God's laws don't apply to God so he can do as he sees fit. If he wants to disregard them, that's OK. If you disregard them, he will happily throw you in hell. " 

I'm sorry.  You'll have to point out in the Bible where it says God made people to be rapists, murderers, and people who completely disregard the well being of others.  The only thing I can see is that God gave people free will.  The rest was up to us.  

If you want to view it as God's laws don't apply to God, then I guess you would have to agree it's just as fair with the government.  Obviously the U.S. government's laws don't apply to the U.S. Government.  We can kill someone and get the chair for it, yet they can kill us for killing someone and get away scott free!!!  I guess the U.S. government can do as it sees fit as well....and they would be happy to "throw you into the gas chamber" if you disregard the laws that they don't have to follow.  

OR...... could it be that they were upholding the law by killing the person who murdered. They in fact wouldn't be considered murderers or doing as they please or even disregarding their own laws, but only enforcing the laws they have in place.   

Redefining terms - gotcha.

Call it "war" or "divine vengeance" or "capital punishment" and the killing just goes away...

Your Bible is full of examples of your God killing and raping (directly or by proxy) and imposing his will on others without regard for their interests. If you believe that man was made in the image of God, why does it bother you that men do what God has done? Do you not read your God's word?

And all of this happened so God's plan would come to fruition, where's free will again? I used to think we had the illusion of free will but the case is going away quickly. 

er.... uh... who's got who? I only took God out of the picture and said exactly what you said, but in my case, i said it about the Law. Are you saying we shouldn't have Law? That people can do what they want when they want and there's no reprecussions???? That's a scary world and I don't want to live in it.

By the way, you said change the wording and the killing just goes away?????? where did I mention that?  I compared justice to a murder.  Swing the conversation the other way and I guess I can justify killing someone because... well... the law can do it and get away with it.   

Free will. I've covered this in another blog of mine, but I'll sumarize again. It's true, ya don't know what you've got till it's gone. Think about the God of the bible. IF he's real, he CREATED us. Just like people CREATED computers. He had the choice to make us however he wanted. He could have not given us free will, programmed us like a computer so that we would only do what he wanted us to do when he wanted us to do it, but he didn't. He gave us free will.

Think about it now. If you truely didn't have free will, you would not be able to choose anything. You can choose to kill or not to kill. You can choose to get up for work today or stay in bed. If free will was taken away. It would be up to God to decide what you do today. If you wanted to go to the beach today... too bad, God's got other plans and you're doing them no matter what. hmm. sucks without free will.

You can choose to deny God or accept Him. Without free will, you would have to accept God, you would not have a choice. Doesn't matter what you'd want because there's no free will to allow you to want anything!!!! Do you see the freedom you have?

If you're going to argue free will, you have to put it into perspective. Free will isn't taken because you're "restricted" by rules. Free will is the choice to follow the rules or break them. Obviously we have free will.

Caposkia: "If you're going to argue free will, you have to put it into perspective. Free will isn't taken because you're "restricted" by rules. Free will is the choice to follow the rules or break them. Obviously we have free will."

Unless, of course, you believe that God has a plan for everyone's life a la Jeremiah 29:11.

And as far as the law (divine or human) I haven't got a problem with it as long as it's evenly and fairly enforced - a concept that is really lost on your God and another of those things that man learned from him. 

Jeremiah 29:11 is reminding the people that he hasn't forgotten about them, but that he will come through for them.  This was a letter from Jeremiah sent to the people who Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile.  That's not talking about controlling people's lives. It's talking about the plan God has to give them a future of hope.  

God does have a plan for everyone's lives.  It is of course again, our choice if we want to follow his plan or not.   

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.  Where do you feel that God's Laws were not evenly and fairly enforced.  Keep in mind that God never made a Law without telling people about it and telling them the ramifications of not following those laws.  (just like our states and Gov't does) Please give specific citing if you reference to biblical or historical happenings. 

God has a plan for me? really? He sure is a bastard for not telling me what it is so I can decide whether to follow it or not.

And don't tell me the plan is in the Bible - the stuff that's in there dealing with people I was doing before I'd even heard of a God (not killing, not stealing, being good to other people).The rest just benefits him and gives the follower nothing.

Let's take on the other stuff now

The story of the "Fall of Man" - God told them not to eat of the tree in the center of the garden or they'd die. Of course, Adam and Eve had no concept of good, evil or death so the words were nonsense. (Gen 2-3)

1 Sam 5:19 - People who knew nothing of the rules opened the ark of the covenant - god killed 50,070 of them. Seems capricious to me.

1 Chron 13 - God kills Uzzah for not wanting the ark to fall off the cart.

 Luke 1 - God asks a teenager to consent to rape and sexual harassment.

well, I should ask you then. Have you seriously sat down, prayed to him, and asked him what his plan is for your life? (I mean sincerely, not sarcastically) Something tells me you haven't.

Also, if you have.  Patience is of vertue as well.  If you read the Bible, you'll notice that most people didn't know what God's plan was for their lives until the time was right for them to know.  

Let's think about this in your case.  I'm not exactly sure how you view God, but if you're bitter towards him like it sounds like you are, or angry at him, or even believe him to be non-existant would you tell you your plans for yourself if you were God??? I'd wait until you had a change of heart.  

Also, to be bitter towards God, it's pretty obvious which direction you'd take, so why should God reveil a plan to you that you're bound to turn down at this point?   

That's quite an assumption that Adam and Eve had no concept of death. It seemed pretty striat forward to me. Honestly, if they really didin't have any concept of death, don't you think God would have said something different so they'd understand the ramifications of death, like you will not exist or you will be destroyed? They obviously knew what death was.

Also, if they had no concept of good and evil, why would the devil temp them with the concept of knowing good and evil. Again, it's not much of a temptation unless you have an idea of what it is. I'm sure their knowlege was limited be it that good was nice and evil was not nice. Of course they probably didn't understand something not nice so the knowlege of understanding that was probably the temptation.

e.g. i can't tempt you with the idea of a hotdog when you're starving if you don't know it's food. How could the devil temp them with anything unless they had a minimal understanding of at least what it was?

1 Sam 6:19 - actually, reading the history of where the arc started and it's process up to this point. Those people were very clear about God's "rules" and power. The ark was widely known as something with great power. God likened it to manifestation of himself for his people. Others, clear about who God was, still mocked him and worshiped other Gods. In this case, the "blastphemous" worshipers... if you will... wanted to see God or were curious and decided to take a peak on their own without God's permission. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway. This made God angry, and was a lesson for others to hear about.

If you're wondering about a reference to the understanding of where I got that "idea" or information from, start reading from; 1 Sam 4 on to your reference.

if you read verse 7 in that chapter. The Philistines heard a great shout, heard that the ark came into the Hebrew's camp and became afraid. They were afraid because they knew that meant that God was with them. So enemies of God's people knew the power of the ark and how much respect it was owed, why would you think the 50,070 would not know?

Also, another reference to this for the next verse you referenced.

well, This reference will also shed some light on the 1 Sam reference too. The ark was not to be touched by anyone other than the Levites. The penalty for touching holy/sacred objects was death. This was mentioned all the way back in the book of Numbers, Chapter 4 to be exact. Uzzah touched the ark and got the penalty that was clear to all. The 50,070 people touched the ark and the same thing happened. It's also noted that the ark is suppose to be Carried by the levites with poles inserted through rings in teh sides of the ark (Ex. 25:12-15). The ark was never suppose to be transported on a cart. Uzzah happened to be the driver of that cart as well.

ok, I read through Luke before. I read through Luke 1 again. Nowhere did I see anything about God asking anyone to consent to rape or sexual harassment. nowhere was either mentioned in the whole chapter. Luke 1 is about God letting an older woman become pregnant after not being able to have children her whole life. (John the baptist was born of her). Then there's Mary, mother of Jesus. Jesus was said to be "born of a virgin" so mary could not have either been raped, or sexually harassed.

Please reread that chapter.

1. Yes, I have prayed for God's will in my life - got nothing. Your something told you wrong (unless by "seriously" you mean "your way" in which case I could never do it because I don't know your way). The only thing I have left is a desire to write/perform religious theatre which I had before I claimed to be a God follower.

2. They had a knowledge of religious objects holding special significance to the followers of that deity. That's why they took it. It was psychological warfare, not that the Philistines held respect for Yahweh. and I rather doubt the Philistines were all that well versed in Mosaic law. On Uzzah, where did it say he wasn't a Levite? It wasn't in the chapters cited. Is this an assumption or do you have a basis for this?

3. Where do you get that what God did to Mary wasn't rape? She certanly wasn't able to give informed consent?

The sexual harrassment is even simpler to explain. an angel comes in and fills the room with light. That angel then says "God, the maker of the universe, wants you to have his baby." Mary was taught from a young age that disobeying her God meant instant death. You don't see harrassment in that? Does absolving your God of bad actions score you extra points?

NB: I'm going on a 10 day, computer fre vacation starting tomorrow morning. I won't be able to respind to you quickly. 

well, as I said, patience too.  Maybe it wasn't the time for you to know.  No one says you have to sit on your butt and wait for God's next command.  Just live your life the way you know best.  If you're willing, God will show you the way he wants you to go.  Especially if the way your heading is not the way needs you.  Again, it's a choice thing.  At this point, you chose not to follow anymore, so he's not going to show you at this point.  It's taken me over 15 years to even start seeing where God wants me to go in life, and I"m still trying to completely figure it out, but things are falling into place.

btw, I don't really have a "way".  I just go with it. I live to the fullest and if there's a door, I try it, if it opens, I see what's on the other side.  (metaphorical) 

Where did it say he was a Levite?  The idea that first, he was transporting it on a cart shows that he wasnt' taking his responsibility as a Levite seriously if he in fact was a Levite.  That's a rarity to find if you look at the history of Levites.  Also, the fact that he did die because he touched the Arc.  As far as I understand, God wouldn't have killed a Levite for touching it because that was not part of the law.  The law stated that ONLY Levites were aloud to touch the arc. That's my basis.   

Where does it say that Mary was taught that disobeying God meant instant death?  That seems quite hipocritical be it that everyone around her can admitingly say they've disobeyed God at least once in their lives and yet they're still alive.  

The problem with this situation is that he was not forced upon her.  Can you find anywhere in the bible where God forced himself upon anyone who loved and followed him?  She loved and followed him.  She "found favor with God" Luke 1:30

Also, rape would have to say that she unwillfully accepted this baby.  Doesn't sound like that anywhere in the chapter.  If she was "raped" by the Spirit, she'd probably be crying, sobbing, she'd probably isolate herself from people for a while.  You know, the typical reaction of a person who had just been raped.  You have to admit, being raped, she wouldn't have "arose and went with haste to the hill country to a city of Judah" to go see her best friend, then say to her, "my soul exalts the Lord and my spirit has rejoiced."  Luke 1:39, 46-47.  Are you telling me she's rejoicing over her rape? 

Even if you believe that going against the will of her God would be instant death to her, no where does that even say she'd have to be rejoicing over it.  She'd still be following God's will, though she's humiliated and troubled.  Doesn't sound like the case though.   

That's ok, I understand, we all have lives outside this site.  Takes me a few days sometimes as well.  I happen to have some extra time recently.  I appreciate our conversation and your time with it.  Looking forward to your response.