Fundamentalists and the Bible 02bywistfall1©
In the first essay, The Bible, Fundamentalists & Lesbian Sex, sixty-four (64) major errors were found along with eight (8) probable errors, and that in only the first eight (8) chapters of Genesis. The reason for that first essay is to combat the hatred that the Fundamentalist/Evangelical preachers are spewing from their pulpits from believing that what's in the Bible is God's inerrant (error free) word, and therefore all should be bound by it as law, even now, and unto stoning for trivial things.
Frankly, as seen in the first essay, I wonder at why no one has sought to charge them with hate crimes since they are sometimes seeking to have lesbians killed because it's supposed to be against God's law. That is trying to usurp the separation of church and state, and override the laws of our land, as well as inciting people to do hateful and harmful things to innocent others. Read the first essay to see the quotes that some of these people have made regarding their desire to see all homosexuals die, or be killed outright.
I initially said lesbians, but it is a fact that it is all but heterosexuals that they condemn and seek to have punished with God's supposed old law as in the Old Testament. There's not much difference between the Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals and the Taliban, or other fundamentalist believers of Islam. They are pretty vociferous in their beliefs, and frankly, traumatizing to those lesbians who dare not say what they know within their persons that they are, namely, women who love women which the Bible does not explicitly condemn though the Bible is extra explicit about condemning so much else.
One can write some hate words on a wall, and not necessarily a church wall, or a synagogue or mosque wall, or any other religious wall, and they will be charged with a hate crime. How much more is it an outright hate crime to openly and quite publicly cry out for death to all homosexuals? The old sticks and stones may hurt me but not words adage seems to be working in reverse here. Those preachers are outright seeking with their words to incite a too eager parishioner, congregant, or some other to go out and do God's work as their preacher sees it.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again: do any hear a loud clamor against those supposedly in service to the same God when they are found to have raped some young girl, including on their church grounds or building, or in fact, in any place. Think about it please.
Way back when in the seventies or eighties, there was a preacher, last name of Swaggart, who was found to be "consorting" with prostitutes. Shamelessly he came out in his church and cried his crocodile tears, and confessed, "I have sinned."
What was said back then? Typically, it was a believer, and not a preacher who was quoted as saying: "It's washed in the blood." In other words, forget it, it's no big thing if you confess it. My, my, such belief.
As I said, it was a poor deluded and ignorant believer who said it. Was there any outcry from the preachers though, or their higher ups? No.
Then there was that Baker fellow who was also caught as having seduced a church member, and his "staff" knew of it, in fact it was thought that his staff may have set it up for him. Was there an outcry from preachers about it? Not that any could tell, that was for sure. Things like that are kept quiet.
That was way back then though some will say. Uh-huh.
What about in a huge church in Hammond, Indiana where the preacher has been said to be having sex with a young lady (don't recall her age, but it wasn't much). Has there been an outcry? No, just news people reporting, then the thunderous sound of silence. They keep these little things in house, and, I guess, wash them in the blood.
Is that all I have? No way.
Now, more recently, and in fact, in September, 2012, there is the rape of a young girl in a Tulsa mega church of some 17,000 people. They kept it quiet for two weeks. Where is the outcry from the Catholic church, or any other church about this? Are these rapes less than homosexuality in their minds, that bothers no innocent, and is wholly consensual? It's saying that what bothers the beliefs of some is of greater harm than the actual infliction of traumatic and very possibly harmful long term, real harm to an innocent child.
It smacks of shameful hypocrisy!
Need anyone again be reminded about the Catholic church and its ongoing woes for having so many pedophile priests that they knew about and shifted to other cities, states, or out of the country to keep them from being prosecuted, or which allowed them to continue to perpetrate their sick needs on more innocent children? Need anyone be told of how they tried to blame parents for not being "watchful" of their children all the while preaching that their priests are a direct connection to God through them in confessional, and to tell your local priest every single sin? Yes, this did happen in a very public outcry by the Catholic church in the Cleveland area. Oh, the hypocrisy, and all the way to the top to this present pope and to his successor too, and goodness only knows how many else.
No worries though, they make them saints as they did over a thousand years ago, or bring them into the halls of power as they did Bishop Law of Boston.
Oh, that's the Catholics, you say. How about the Tribes Mission who bamboozled parents to both go out to preach to the ignorant about God so that they'd have time and opportunity to rape their children left in their care?
The truth is that there is no hollering, no parading against such "sinning" by God's own, no outcry, just that god awful sound of their silence. Why? Where is their outrage at a real actual and factual injustice?
But let a lesbian feel that it's in her to love with another woman, and the sounds of silence are nowhere for the din of their condemnation of something that isn't even anywhere in the Bible. They shout it from the rooftops and demand God's law of death. Once more, pure hypocrisy.
Don't believe me? Look it up. I challenge anyone to find it in the Bible as a woman loving another woman being prohibited. One such of these idiot preachers of hate is Pat Robertson, but even he has said that "oral sex" is okay because it's not "specified" in the Bible. Okay, not "specified" is the operative word. Where in the Bible is it "specified" that lesbianism is a sin against their God?
It isn't, but I think one of the many translations thought they had a way around that since believers believe whatever they are told is God's word, The Good News, I think it is, that has injected the word "homosexual" in the Bible as being condemned by God so as to cover it all though there may not even be a word such as homosexual in the Hebrew language (at least one Internet site says that to its knowledge none is known to exist). For sure the so-called up to date Bibles do not use the word homosexual. So what, that's nothing new. Many people have "injected" what they thought God should have said, or meant.
That's true. They have, and you can find it for yourself, and very easily, in your Bible, Good News or not. There are two very different versions of Noah and his fabled ark. There is Jesus saying that his generation shall not pass away before all of the dire happenings he is said to have prophesized came true, and so did Paul, but when it didn't happen in "this generation", it was changed, supposedly by Paul.
There are definitely two different versions of who laughed, and when, Abraham or Sarah, when it was supposedly said by God, or some godly messengers, that Sarah would have a child by Abraham, though if it's preached about, it is Sarah, "the woman", who laughs at God's word, and not the man, Abraham. That's how it goes though—"It was the woman" who put the laughter in my mouth.
Yes, I have heard it stressed several times from the pulpit that God's ability to work miracles is a fact, and that it was Sarah that laughed when she hears she will have a child regardless of menopause, but until I read it for myself, I had no idea that Abraham also is said by the Bible to have laughed at the same thing, but in a different setting. It makes one wonder if the preachers know of this contradiction of just who it was that did the laughing.
If they did know, do they ascribe this to the probability of at least two different writers, for why would one writer wish to give conflicting views of the same story? For sure, it was no god or God that wrote or had the Bible written for it is chock full of errors and contradictions that no god would make, much less the God.
It is necessary to continue to tell the truth of the lies, that the Bible is not without error, or inerrant as they like to formally say. The Bible, in point of fact, is full of errors, period! If sixty-three (63) errors in the first eight chapters of the first book of the Bible, Genesis, isn't enough to stop their crying out that homosexuality is against God's law, then the exposure of more of those lies must continue. This essay, and possibly others to come, seeks to do just that.
You don't hear of any of them fighting loudly with those who mow their lawns on whatever they deem the Sabbath to be, but a man in the Bible was said to be stoned for picking up sticks. He was "working" on the Sabbath, so death to him. If they truly want to be like the Taliban, they need to scream at every violation of the Law and condemn them, and that includes any who have ham for Easter, or whenever.
Such hypocrisy. They wish to rule everyone else's sexuality, but when it's one of their own, silence rules, and never mind God, he had his head turned so he needn't be bothered. Right!
So let's get to it. Let's see how far we can go in revealing what's really said by the Bible, and where. There's no hiding here. If something looks like it should be there, or well may be there, it is said, as will be seen when we look at historical facts which are used here, but only known historical facts as only scientific facts are used unless otherwise known. However, it's often the Bible itself that gives testimony to its own lies.
Huh? You say—"How's that?" Only unless otherwise known from science? Yes. For example, gravity is only a theory, however, test if from a few stories up and you will find it a good working theory. It hasn't failed yet that we know of. That kind of "unless otherwise known" fact.
* * * *
In this essay, all of the verses will not necessarily be considered, nor all of the chapters. The only consideration is whether or not the Bible can be taken literally as the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals claim it should be, or not so, and if it is without error so should be followed as the law of the land. As one cited person in the previous essay said, it's what the bible says that's important, and nothing else is, she left to be implied. In other words, as the many Fundamentalists/Evangelicals say, if God said, then it is so, and the Bible is God's word. We shall see (as we have already). Is there really more; are there truly more than the sixty-three errors to be found after the first eight chapters of Genesis?
Yes, from the first essay, it was factually pointed out that there are at least sixty-four (64) major errors in just the first eight chapters of the Book of Genesis, along with eight (8) probable errors.
Additionally, since it is Christians in the form of Fundamentalists/Evangelicals, etc., that claim the Bible as a whole is God's inerrant (without error) word that lays open the very foundation of Christianity itself. In other words, is the God of the Christian Bible God, or is he a made up God? The errors in the Bible should be the sole judges of that claim as is proper.
It will be continued to use five (5) asterisks ***** to indicate a major error, and two (2) asterisks to indicate a probable error. The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is being used in the essays, but on occasion, other bibles are considered for verification of certain claims needing further backing.
In the previous essay, it stopped after chapter eight (8) of the book of Genesis. In this essay, we begin with chapter 9 of the book of Genesis.
To be very clear, and as information, there is no claim being made here that there is no God. As far as anyone can tell, there is no way to factually prove that there is, or is not, a God, or a Goddess. There are simply those who believe one way or the other: Fundamentalist and Evangelicals believe, as well as other Christians and religions of other faiths, that there is a God, and some that believe in multiple Gods, and others also believe that there is a God, but subscribe to no known religion.
The only concern here is whether or not the God of the Christian Bible is true and believable in its written word, and therefore without error, since a god does not make errors, or say, or write, or have written anything that is erroneous, this being what the Fundamentalist/Evangelicals, etc., believe and preach from, including that the Bible, and God himself, calls for death to all homosexuals. This is patently not true of lesbians, not that excluding lesbians from that belief will make any difference; seeking death per God's inerrant word makes all the difference if that word is in error, or a fictive.
Readers are encouraged to prove for themselves all that is claimed as an error in this essay. No claim of having any truth is made here, only the exposing of lies in the Bible, intentional or not. Thank you for reading, and more, if you agree with what is written here, please pass this on to any lesbians that you know of for many have been lied to, shamed, humiliated, and terrorized by misguided preachers with the threat of eternal fires in hell for simply being what their bodies tell them that they are, and to love as is in them to love. The brutal psychological beating that is rendered to them is a horrible thing for them to bear, especially if there is no valid reason for such treatment.
Thank you again. What is in Italics is from the Bible, as are the chapter and verses.
The Covenant with Noah
1 God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
All was declared good in chapter 1 of Genesis, but it wasn't for "the serpent" was in the garden with Adam and Eve, and God had not told them that he wasn't really "good." They were commanded to multiply, and we're told they did their best for all was "good." Then later, in Noah's time, he destroyed it all for it wasn't good, and all that was on land (and maybe in the sea too) was destroyed save an indecipherable number of animals along with Noah, his wife, their three children and their children's wives.
So now God has told Noah to replenish the earth again. Sounds like a schizophrenic God these men are creating for everyone to believe, one that is real scary.
2 The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.
Is this to say that all the animals were tame insofar as people were concerned? That is incredible; far too unbelievable to believe. If there was wickedness galore on earth before the flood, then none of the animals had a chance to live for they had to be tame before this saying in verse 2, for they would have been killed by wicked men, so why were they killed by the flood to begin with? Perhaps it was because the "warriors", "the men of renown" had killed them all off, or mostly, so why not let the flood kill the few that were left?
On the face of it, it is ridiculous. Is a crocodile afraid of any human? Or a hyena, or a lion, or any snake, especially a constricting snake? As it reads, this is an error to be sure. *****
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Okay, now all animals are on the menu for people. All? So why did he later forbid them to eat some types of animals in later books, as I'm sure we're all familiar with to some degree? Once again, God is not acting like a real God, but like men who are not sure what they are saying, the contradictions they are putting in their God's mouth. Another error to be sure. *****
Oh, and it says "I give you everything." Then why later was pork taken off of the menu. Did God forget about pork not being good, or the many other animals that were later taken off the menu? We'll have to try to remember to mark an error later on when those animals are off the menu when God changes his mind again just as if he were a human being.
Or is this God simply a human being or an idea made up in the human mind of what a god is supposed to be like? It sure seems like it.
4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Oops! Just don't eat, er, drink their blood. Cook it real well first. Good idea. That keeps germs away, for the most part, but is that it? I suspect not, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.
In this, silly though it seems at first reading, God is saying that any animal that kills a human will answer to God for it. That's what it reads like. So God turns the lion, the tiger, the crocodile, etc., that he has made, and saved from the flood, and now denies them the right to do as was put in them to do? Four bibles say similarly, and I must confess, this sounds unreal to me. However, as it is written, and as it infers, this too, is an unbelievable major error in the Bible. *****
6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.
This is interesting, for now we definitely see that men wrote this supposedly Holy Scripture, and not Moses as some say, as we shall see later. How do we know this? It says above that "...in his own image God made humankind", not I made human kind, or even the strange "we", or "us" made humankind, but "God", as in someone else wrote this.
The last two lines indicate that another human will shed the blood of anyone who has shed the blood of a human since it is God's way, and man is the image of God. God's way?
Perhaps this was true to the Israelites who, on orders from God through Moses or some other, took every life in a town, or a battle as in various places in the Old Testament. According to our ways in the West, this is not how we say we will do, but their culture was different. Which now begs the question of whether or not this was written by men who would demand revenge. Yes, the Bible has God saying that Vengeance belongs to him [Deuteronomy, Chapter 36, verse 35 and other places in both Old and New Testament], but this negates it, and further indicates different men writing the Bible. As such, it is an error. *****
7 And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it.' 8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 'As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.' 12 God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.' 17 God said to Noah, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.'