Biblical Timelines & Neanderthals

The Bible as I understand it

is a collection of stories passed down as oral tradition, or the telling of histroy before written language became popular. The stories might have been stories like we have here or actual events. In some cases it was an attempt to legitamize their lives, to show where they came from and explain away desbeliefs and explain things that people did not understand.
It is also a set of rules or laws that were passed down the same way. How to cook to avoid food poisoning, an attempt perhaps to show mercy,by not cooking the flesh of a baby in the milk of the mother, an attempt to keep people from eating scavengering animals such as snakes some sea food and pork.
I do not believe the earth was created in 6 days as WE know them, it was an attempt to explain that it took time to create all the things that were there for us to use.
Adam and Eve was a story to teach dicipline by showing that good things might be lost if you do the wrong thing.
If you read the Bible with a discerning eye you will find things that parallel what science is telling us now. Taking into account the oral retelling of the stories will explain why they are different. The people who told the stories were not learned people, they were not stupid either, stupid people died as a result of doing things wrong and getting caught or hurting themselves, or various other means.
To make a point, how many of those reading thought/think that dinosaaurs and early men existed at the same time?
Everyone needs something to believe in, I believe I will take a nap.

One more thought

The Bible says man was created in his image, science says we developed from amoeba and protozoa. Perhaps they are both correct?

I had been grappling with this question my whole life...

No one, Augustine or Aquinas, Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, had really gotten me there. But thank God (oops, force of habit) that wistfall1 posted on literotica.com and proved conclusively and for all time that reason and revelation are incompatible. Priests, abandon your temples, for wistfall1 read somewhere that Neanderthals walked the earth many tens of thousands of years ago!

FOR THE AUTHOR

in what you have penned, you are on the right track, time and peoples. TK U MLJ LV NV

Bull S__t

Modern Science is now know to be full of it's own errors. Scientist now admit this. The modernist assumption that we could achieve absolute truth through science is now been shown to be false. Some people put blind faith in science while accusing others of putting blind faith in religion or the bible. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. History can't either, but most supposed historical proof against the bible is proven to be false and a lot of books that try and say the bible is proven false can be blown out of the water by biblical scholars and historians with an open mind. That being said there are many false interpretation by fundamentalist that won't pass the light of scrutiny and that is often where the true difficulty lies.

To anonymous & Bull S___t

"Bull S__tModern Science is now know to be full of it's own errors. Scientist now admit this."
* * * *
They always have, save when one hates to admit his theory is wrong. Theories abound, thank goodness, and no Catholic Church, or Calvin, or Zwingly to burn those who question the bible. However, there's no doubt that science had done much to prove many theories. General Relativity and Gravity are not those proven, but I wouldn't try to disprove it bodily.
* * * *

"The modernist assumption that we could achieve absolute truth through science is now been shown to be false.
* * * *
Has been shown that for a long time, so you're right.
* * * *

"Some people put blind faith in science while accusing others of putting blind faith in religion or the bible"
* * * *
it's always been that way about a lot of things. Humans are funny that way.
* * * *

"Science can neither prove nor disprove God. History can't either, but most supposed historical proof against the bible is proven to be false and a lot of books that try and say the bible is proven false can be blown out of the water by biblical scholars and historians with an open mind. "
* * * *

Now here I differ with you, but let's get on thing straight on this: God, as in the bible, can definitely be proven false not only by history, but by it's own words either alone or in tandem with history.

I invite you to prove anything that I said is so to be not so, or, if you will, a lie. I've tried to be very careful in what I say. Some is opiinion, but when it is, I try to say it as such.

The God of the bible is a fictive, period! and that proven by the bible itself. If any wish to believe in it, that's their business. What I'm getting at by all of these stories and essays is that the bible is not to be believed as the word of any God, and certainly not the word of the Biblical God. As you say below, much is said by fundamentalists, including the Catholic Church, that is wrong period.

I say look at all I've said and prove it for yourself, or if I've misled any by lying. If I've not lied, then what I say is true.

It is not right to demean any lesbian, or threaten to kill any lesbian because of some ridiculous belief in Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, or even Genesis. Check out the errors I've pointed out in my essays and stories.

Thank you for you comment. Any questions, please ask, or e mail me.

wistfall1

the whole truth please

Fundamentalists do not speak for the entire Christian/Jewish community of theological thought. There are other schools of thought that support the union of science and Faith without doing damage to either. This is not the place nor is there space to fully explore this question, but I can refute every one of your assertions regarding your interpretations in a scholarly manner. You are right about one thing, though. There are those in every society who latch on to bits and pieces of information that will "proof-text" their own agenda without considering the greater body of knowledge available, either consciously or out of ignorance. that serves only their own purpose

Okay, Anonymous writer who wishes the whole truth

Be my guest. Either here or start a thread to refute any or all that I've given as biblecial facts from NRSV, KJV, NIV of the bible.

Go ahead and tell me how there is not any proof in Turkey that Rameses II and the Hittites signed agreements to end their war during the so-called Exodus in the time of Rameses II. Prove it to one and all with facts just as I have.

Or prove that history is wrong in saying that the Golden Age of Egypt was during the times of the Tuthmosis Pharaohs, or the second Exodus time as in 1Kings.

Better, prove by scripture from those bibles that there aren't two flood stories with different quantities of animals taken in. Prove by those bibles that they weren't supposed to be in the Ark for a year or more.

Scientifically, prove that weeds, plants, etc., can flourish without the sun's presence, or that the earth could possibly be in the sky by its lonesolme without a sun to keep it in place.

No, the fundamentalists do not speak for the entire Christian/Jewish community of theological, or any, thought. But prove how those communities spoke out vociferously in condemnation of the Catholic pedophiles, or those of any other church of Jewish/Catholic faith. Their silence was as an enabling parent giving money anytime an addicted child wanted to have a fix.

How many of the Chrirstian/Jewish community hollered out in disgust when those idiots said to kill all homosexuals as is in the Law of Leviticus. To not have said anything in a strong and loud voice, and demanded those retract their words is to enable.

I've laid out facts. Prove them wrong. Be my guest.

And why isn't this the place for it? This is as a sanctuary for all who are sexually hetero or otherwise. They even publish news of such as this.
I am not anonymous here screaming without proofs that any and everything is wrong, just that the bible is not to be taken literally as it is not in any way factual in a manner that matters.

it might be best to not lump every christian into the same group

with fringe persons who would want to kill because of anyones sexual orientation.
You do your argument great disservice by doing so.
I offer you an option: there is a force that caused the universe to form, that force causes the universe to change and grow even as we sling words at each other. Perhaps, I repeat PERHAPS that power is what many refer to as GOD.
I know there are some who believe he is an old man in white flowing robes and a long beard. OH, you mean like Mr. Zip the toking hippy from the 60's and 70's?
Anyone can take any list of information, including your weekly grocery list, and use it to support whatever they wish to in their mind. By changing wording you can take a statistically proven percentage and reverse the meaning of said information, or at least appear so. look in your newspaper, they do it every day.
To be angry at any religious group because aof a few extreme members of that group is wrong to the rest of that group. I know a lesbian who believes every man should have his dick removed, does that give me the right to say you do too? Not today, maybe not tomorrow either.
It is the moderate voices wedged in the middle who are in larger numbers of any group. The extreme ends get the publicity because they squeek the loudest. It is the extremes that cause the problems.

Why are you SO angry?

Fact, it was NOT Ramsey's the II, it was a Pahroh named Akmosen. Look it up. Name means (Brother of Moses) Opps. slip number one.
Look up somethng called the Human Genome Progect, and tell me why on the FRONT PAGE, they talk about the 261 genepairs that CANNOT come from eveloution. Oppps slip number two. And from modern science too, imagine that...!
And finnaly, tell me when year one is. Since no one can; quit quoting dates when you have no clue what you are saying. Strike three... you are OUT!
I have offered on many occations to help you find the truth. But honestly, since all you want is to spew your hate, I recind my offer until you are ready to listen with an open mind. I'm sorry someone hurt you. But you have the choice, given by the God you hate, to do something positive about it. You choose to spew hatred and bile at anyone who might want to help you. You need to realize that compared to what you think you know, it is but a thimbul full to the truth you spurn.
Sweetheart, It's time to pull your head out your ass and quit smelling the shit!
Let go of the hate and anger and let yourself heal.
Myhands316

To PTBzzzz, and any interested

This is an email I sent to PBTzzzz with regards to his comments, particularly the last one:
* * * *

Your comments on my essay on Biblical Timelines and Neanderthals are very interesting, however, I am not angry as you suggest.

How about tired of over two thousand years of Christian/Judeo BS, patriarchy that enslaves and dictates, the more than vocal voices of the many here in this free country that advocate building electified fences to kill off lesbians, or a state senator who is also a lawyer, businessman, as well as a Baptist preacher who says "let's go back to the law of Leviticus" and many others who say the same, and very publicly and are printed for all to read about.

In our enlightemed civilation that has taken us to the moon, and sent out space probes advertising our presence in the Universe, and have such freedoms of press and learning, we are awfully silent on words such as those above.

No, I'm not angry, I'm frustrated at our silience in not condemmning people who are so willing to say "kill them all for they are an abomination to God and his law.

A few, you say? Not quite. The power of the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and every fundamentalist minded preacher of every denomination such as Southern Baptist, screamed at the law in California and funded Proposition 8, and inundated the ignorant to vote to repeal same sex marriage.

They were also funded by almost a million dollars from a very rich man who was mentored by a very demented believer in the Old Testament Law and taught that our nation was meant to be a nation unto God as in the Old Testament, and therefore that law should supercede our constitution. Are you familiar with all of this?

Is all of this your idea of "a few" who are on the fringe?

Sounds to me as if they are shakers and movers who try to put people like Micheelle Bachman and Rick Santorum in office as they did Bubba Bush who hears God telling him to go to war and never mind what he has to do to get his/God's war. Yes, they too are "finge" peoople, "the few".

Or how about in Iowa where truly enlightened people said we must allow same sex marriage. Fortunately, they were State Supreme Court Justices. Unfortunately, "the few" had them ousted for vioilating their bible beliefs.

Is that a few?

You seem like someone who is trying to mediate peace on a subject that is to this day being fought for very hard. Quiet a few states have declared "NO" to same sex marriage. Guess why. Why because they follow, and listen to, "the few", the "fringe".

This is not a battle of against a few, but against the tryranny of the ignorant being led by those societal movers and shakers, and if you don't think that there are movers and shakers, go back to 2008 when our world almost imploded financially due to movers and shakers who went unnoticed, or ignored by those in power who allow such as them to operate with impunity.

Again, keeping quiet about injustice, and the tormenting of girls who know they are not heterosexual, but lesbians, and threatening them with the fires of hell and eternal separation from a God that is a construction of some very intelligent men, but a construction nonetheless, is itself an abomination to what could be the best in humanity--freedom to be as one must be, or as Jefferson said: (paraphrased)"I don't care what my neighbor believes as long as he does me no harm in any direct physical manner." (See the essay before this one for his exact words.)

You say the bible parallels science in many ways? Okay, let's have a few. Let's see, is it Joshua making the sun stop? Or how about his making the Jordan to part as Moses is said to have parted the Red Sea?

Speaking of Moses, he had over 600,000 men of arms and was afraid of a little ole army of Egyptians? Now there's a tall tale for you.

Why, gee, even in the book of the prophet Samuel, those same 600,000 men were present.

As I said to that anonymous writer who said he could counter every one of my assertions, I say to you as I said to him, show me.

I make it very easy for anyone to counter what I've written, and you can go back to my original stroy, The Devil's Gateway, and start on chapter 6, and go through the secons part of that story for more of my facts to counter. From there you can go through my essays--all of them--and counter all I've said.

No, I've not said ever that there is no God, or God equivalent. And no, scientists do not believe that they can prove that there is no God. We have no idea if there is a God or not.

But anyone who looks at the bible with that "discerning" eye and reads without preconception, can find as manny, or more, errors in it than I did thus far.

Thank you for your comments, and for doing as you thought was good and proper as far as you know, but have you ever read the bible with that "discerning eye"?

I'm going to post this on comments as well as send it to you this way.

wistfall1

Your subjective, rather than objective, opinion is that people should be charged with hate crimes for their belief system rather than actually committing a crime. Given that punishment is a legal remedy against an illegal act, it seems that your subjective opinion is not in keeping with objective reality or morality. You want to make criminal ideas, and imprison/punish people for disagreeing with you. That's tyranny.

I agree that lesbians (and gays, that you've strangely left out) should not be made to feel demeaned for their personal choices or whatever they were born with, but that's not a belief you or I have the right to enforce upon others.

The truth or failures of the Bible is completely irrelevant to this argument. It could be one hundred percent gospel as dictated by God himself, but that wouldn't make persecution of homosexuals right, and it could be one hundred percent bullshit and you still wouldn't be right.

Nobody's right when everybody's wrong.

To myhands

"Why are you SO angry?"
* * * *
Not angry, frustrated at the ignorance and willful blindness such as is exhibited by some here. See any?


"Fact, it was NOT Ramsey's the II, it was a Pahroh named Akmosen. Look it up. Name means (Brother of Moses) Opps. slip number one."
* * * *
"Not Ramsey's the II, huh? You say "Pahroh Akmosen"?

If so, when did this Akmosen riegn--dates if you please?

And if it was "Pahroh Akmosen" (meaning of the Exodus "Pahroh" I take it you mean), then are you sayiing that "Pahroh Akmosen had the Israelites to build Pithom and Rameses as ini Genesis, chapter 1, verse 11?

If so, that's interesting, and I thank you for enlightening me. You are a most excellent teacher.


"Look up somethng called the Human Genome Progect, and tell me why on the FRONT PAGE, they talk about the 261 genepairs that CANNOT come from eveloution. Oppps slip number two. And from modern science too, imagine that...!"
* * * *

To make sure, you're telling me that there are over 20,000 genes that definitely are due to evolution? That seems to be a more than reasonable concllusion from what you say since science says we have 20,000 to 25,000 genes.

More to the point on this essay, what difference does what you say are unaccounted for genes? Would you please enlighten one and all on this?


"And finnaly, tell me when year one is. Since no one can; quit quoting dates when you have no clue what you are saying. Strike three... you are OUT!"
* * * *
I'm sorry, but what dates are you talking about (that I have no clue about). Please, again, teach me.

I have offered on many occations to help you find the truth. But honestly, since all you want is to spew your hate,
* * * *
Hate? Well, of ignorance yes, and of how ignorant preachers make lesbians feel guilty and ashamed, and humiliate them and psychologically damage them, well, I guess I do hate that.

And true, I'm not found of any preacher, or legislator openly saying we need to go back to the Law of the Old Testament and deal with all homosexuals according to what that law says their punishment should be--death to men (women weren't important enough to legislate against back then as women were property, or treated as such).
* * * *
"I recind my offer until you are ready to listen with an open mind. I'm sorry someone hurt you. But you have the choice, given by the God you hate, to do something positive about it. You choose to spew hatred and bile at anyone who might want to help you. You need to realize that compared to what you think you know, it is but a thimbul full to the truth you spurn."

Aw, shucks, hon. You'd deprive me of your wisdom and great knowledge. Now that hurt


"Sweetheart, It's time to pull your head out your ass and quit smelling the shit!"

Well, I thought for a while you were one of those nice Christian guys, but that wsan't very Christian of you to say such as that. I'm not sure, but I think I dislike you depriving me of your vast wisdom and teachings as you said you'd do.

Bye, myhands

To anonymous of "Your subjective, rather than objective..."

"Your subjective, rather than objective, opinion is that people should be charged with hate crimes for their belief system rather than actually committing a crime."
* * * *
Let's see if I understand you correctly: You're saying that it's okay to openly preach killing lesbians, etc, and that that should just be believed to be a "belief system"?

Gee, do the FBI watch Neo Nazis for their belief system? I don't think so.

Does the Justice Department watch KKK for their belief system only?

If either of them openly and publicly stated that we should kill, kill, kill, then I think they might just get hit with a hate crime.

Well, you think as you do. Personally, I don't like anyone saying we should kill anyone just because they're different.


"Given that punishment is a legal remedy against an illegal act, it seems that your subjective opinion is not in keeping with objective reality or morality. You want to make criminal ideas, and imprison/punish people for disagreeing with you. That's tyranny."
* * * *
Ah, I see. If I say to you that I think you should be killed, and repeat it time and again, are you saying you wouldn't at least take umbrage at my saying that? Or you wouldn't go get a restraining order since I threatened you? Are you saying it's okay to advocate the killing of unconforming groups of people?


"I agree that lesbians (and gays, that you've strangely left out) should not be made to feel demeaned for their personal choices or whatever they were born with, but that's not a belief you or I have the right to enforce upon others."
* * * *
Not so. Gays, transgenders, transvestites, transsexxuals, transex have not been left out by me. You've just not read my stories or other essays. However, it is true that I write mostly for lesbians. I have a place in my heart for them, wouldn't you know. Sorry about that.


"The truth or failures of the Bible is completely irrelevant to this argument. It could be one hundred percent gospel as dictated by God himself, but that wouldn't make persecution of homosexuals right, and it could be one hundred percent bullshit and you still wouldn't be right."
* * * *

You know, not too many people object to politicians or preachers, or churches large and small, being so against same sex anything, and that being so, the lack of truth in the bible when it is preached so strongly as literal in such a way that so much has been done to hinder the natural rights of all to dictate their own personal lives, makes it extremely relevant.

Take away the bible, and you have no one saying kill all homosexuals as is in Leviticus. That makes it all very relevant.

I have urged one and all to read what I've written to prove the truth of what I say is not in the bible, as well as what is. Ignorance is harmful to all on something like this. Please read my comments a few back to PTBzzzz for more info on the relevance and "belief system" you say I'm trying to deny to others.

Whoever you are, you have a wonderful mind. Please check me out, and also, read the bible as if it were a strange history book without any preconceptions about its veracity. It's hard to do--I know, it took me a long time to wipe out what had been implanted in my mind--like Noah and his two pairs of each.
Nobody's right when everybody's wrong.

Agree to a point.

While I absolutely agree with you on the Bible being completely full of holes, I think you hurt your argument a bit by making sweeping generalizations. I absolutely believe in evolution, and I believe that Man created God, not the converse. And I believe that anyone who threatens me or mine with ANY sort of consequences, be they in this life or some sort of afterlife, is a complete fool.
Furthermore, I can empathize with you regarding your being ostracized for your sexual identity. While I am a straight man, I believe that someone's desire for love knows only the bounds of their own capacity for love. My only criticism of your essay would be that you come across as a tad "shrill" in places because of your vociferousness regarding your sexuality. And yes, that's your whole point in writing this essay in the first place - I get that. But as this essay is, in essence, an argument, and your goal is to change minds and beliefs, I encourage you to start changing minds by emphasizing common ground more and minimizing what makes you different. People tune out the shouter when it starts becoming about the shouter and not the issue at hand.
Regardless, I applaud you for being out and proud, and being brave enough to voice your opinion in the face of public scrutiny. You're a gifted writer, and you must NOT let the general populace prevent you from speaking your mind. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. Blessed Be. --Ken

Wow controversy abounds.

I'll just leave my two cents and say thanks for sharing and giving me some more things to think about.

IDB

I hear what you are saying

but my thinking on what you present does not follow the same form as yours and I disagree with your conclusions.
Keep hoping for a better world.
I have said enough.

A Toast To You ...

for not only having the gift of writing, but also the guts to put your essays and stories in the public arena!

This essay in particular has caused quite a stir ... and rightly so. If people would get their heads out of the sand and open their eyes to see more than what's been drummed down our throats with religion, then it'd be okay. But unfortunately Fundamentalism is deep-seated and won't go away.

Generally speaking people don't like change ... and to change the history books, but more so - the Bible would definitely be the cause of riots at least, more like World War III.

Thank you for your continued work and teachings. I hope that 2013 brings you everything you wish for and more.

A Scattered, Stream of Thought Report of my First Reaction

There are no doubt flaws with the bible. First, let me say that proving God's inexistance is simply not possible. Think cosmic teapot. Second, historical inconsistencies do not actually prove anything. True, you can provide evidence to make your argument more persuasive, but keep in mind, the Christian God is omnipotent. If God exists, he/she can do anything. This provides a weak, though fully feasible rebuttle to points such as yours. You say the Bible is inconsistent with what we've observed about DNA? I can say, "Well, don't the Lord work in mysterious ways? De Lord wants such inconsistencies. You see, de Lord wants to be followed by faith. Yep, God ain't never been one for the test tubes and lab coats." This is a ridiculous statement, but you can't prove it wrong. You can refute the hell out of it, but the possibility is still there. Beyond that, several Christian sects believe that God speaks directly to his/her followers, and such interactions supercede the word of the Bible. You lay out a persuasive argument, but that ain't proof. After all, Agassiz convinced a lot of folks of polygenism, and we know what bullshit that turned out to be. The most dangerous thing in the world isn't the Bible, but certitude. Also, if God does exist, nothing he/she does can possibly be wrong; that is simply nonsensicle. If I were you, I would shift away from the whole certitude thing. Once you start deciding what is natural and what ain't, shit tends to go bad. Again, thing Agassiz. Talking about injustice of the Church is fun and easy, but it doesn't actually provide much in the way of proof. At its core, that is just a ploy to appeal to people's emotional biases. Have you ever discussed the death penalty and heard that annoying defense, "what if your sister/wife/otherrelation were raped and murdered? Wouldn't you want that guy dead?" This is similar to the way your conclusion plays out. Such plays at emotions are the very thing that many preachers employ to get people to suspend their critical thinking. Many young people have been manipulated similarly into doing some pretty horrific shit. In closing, relax, you're in the standard position. General skepticism is best, preach that, not a skepticism solely pointed at theism.

Thanks for posting,
I thoroughly enjoyed this.

To anon;ymous "A Scattering Stream of Thought Report:

"First, let me say that proving God's inexistance is simply not possible."
* * * * *

To refute what I quoted you as you indicate to be saying :

Whether there is a God, or not is not up for debate for we cannot, as you say, prove one way or another if there is a God.

If you had followed my words, it is that:

Whether the God presented in the bible is

A) The God, the one and only as presented in the bible, and
B) That that God;s word in the bible is inerrant

Is a fictive, pure and simple! That is what I'm saying and proving.

This is proven by both the bible itself and history. Oh, and science too.

That is all that my stories and essays are out to prove, period!

Glad you enjoyed it though.

wistfall1

PS: The reason for my posting all of this is all of the too public comments made about how being a lesbian is against God's law as in the bible and merits the bible's justice against God's word, namely, death. This by both preachers, elected officials who deny equal rights in America that are guaranteed by our constitution.

Okie Dokie

Yes, but you still run into the issue of omnipotence. One could argue that the Bible is not fictive, but simply shares only a part of the story. An omnipotent being can fuck with timelines, DNA, and what-have-you however he/she wants. This does not directly contradict the biblical characterization of God.

Congratulations, anonymous "Okie Dokie"

You've just desscribed another old myth: Zeus! He was omnipotent and could do anything too, including seducing a hot chick and creating a mini-Zues, Hercules.
* * * *
Okie Dokie said "Yes, but you still run into the issue of omnipotence. One could argue that the Bible is not fictive, but simply shares only a part of the story. An omnipotent being can fuck with timelines, DNA, and what-have-you however he/she wants. This does not directly contradict the biblical characterization of God."


Really? Just like in Sci-fi, huh? Or in Zues. I take it that you are the anonymous of "A Scattering Stream of Thought Report:"

There are over 60 major errors in the first 8 chapters of Genesis, (see first essay for an itmeization) including the very first verse. Why does this matter for my stories and essays? Simply because:

A) Fundamentalists say the bible is the inerrant word of the one and only true god, and as such is without error (inerrant), therefore all--you, I, and everyone else should be boiund by the law of Leviticus.
B) Fundamentalist preachers and politicians, et.al., not only believe, but say that even now all who are not heterosexual should be subjected to the punishment as given in Leviticus, to wit, killed. (See my first essay for some of the quotes from preachers, politicians, and even celebrities.)
C) Therefore the bible is not without error. (See other essays for even more errors itemized.)

This is obvioiusly a lie, and the bible itself proves it.

The God portrayed in the Old Testament is the Father of the New Testament, therefore that loving father who watches over even the birds, is the same god that the bible says ordered genocide. Some love, huh?

Believe it if you will, but as Jerfferson said, I don't care if my neighbor believes in 20 gods, he/she does not do me bodily harm, no steals my pocketbook.

IOW: Don't shove your beliefs down my throat, and don't threaten me with death for being as I was born to be. Keep your hate-filled, life theatening to yourself and stop preaching lies.

Thank you for another myth, but it's not needed.

wistfall1

Once More

First, though you have successfully reframed my argument in sillier terms, it still holds. No, it does not prove that the god in the Bible is the one true god, but it negates your assertion that such is impossible.

Second, there is nothing inherently contradictory about a loving God having people killed. (Let me add, I do NOT approve of the injsutice toward homosexuals. I just disagree with your reasoning.) It is emotionally hard to swallow, but again, we can't understant this god's love. It is different than ours.

I've seen better

Interesting stuff, but pretty much any apparent contradiction in the Bible could be chalked up to God's transcendant nature. Human perception is imperfect, so our observations are imperfect, so our inferences are imperfect. God, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. So the timeline don't match up to ours? I will go with the omniscient guy. Science is a process to improve human perception, but it is still infinitely inferior to God's perception. You have definitely shown that the Bible's fictiveness is probable, but loopholes abound; I see evidence in your essay, but nothing that could be construed as proof.

To the last 2 anonymous'

The "I've seen better" one:

"any apparent contradiction in the Bible could be chalked up to God's transcendant nature"

What a bunch of nothing! Are you a budding theologian?

"Science is a process to improve human perception, but it is still infinitely inferior to God's perception."

And you find God's superior perception where? For you, on this thread, it can only be in the bible. Therefore your superior god is ful of errors. Have you seen the more than 60 errors in the first 8 chapters of Genesis or are you new to the "Let's defend the bible club though it's full of errors"? Oh, and there are many more errors after the first 8 chapters. Superior perception, but where is that perception save in belief that abhors reason and prefers to pick on girls and threaten them with hellfire, shame, and humiliation?

" I see evidence in your essay, but nothing that could be construed as proof. "

What a joke. Way over 100 errors, including some whoppers, and you do not find proof? Oh, you haven't read the other essays, nor the stories, huh? Yeah. Save it for the ignorant who fill your pews and do not question.
**************************************** *********************
The " Once more" guy:

"there is nothing inherently contradictory about a loving God having people killed"

Did you really mean to write that? If so, or anyway, spare us the love. Tell me, recently, what did the 900,000 thousand (yes, nine hundred thousand) Rwandans who were massacred do to deserve God's love--or was it that they were all scheduled to go to him at the same time? What an idiotic thing to say.

"It is emotionally hard to swallow, but again, we can't understant this god's love. It is different than ours."

And here, just as with myhands, you reveal yourself as a bible believer who just can't stand to see your beliefs challenged though it may mean keeping some even more idiotic preacher from threatening some poor lesbian with shame, humiliation, being demeaned, and with death not only of mind but of body.

When you do not stand up against when you are as a family to those preachers and politicians, or celebreties, you enable them just as a parent enables a drug addict bly constantly giving money that always feeds the addiction.
*************************************** ***********************************

Both of you, go away and preach elsewhere, or read Jesus' words: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." (KFV)

I've seen better part 2

You misunderstand me. These perceived errors may in fact be discrepancies that arise due to God's perfection and our own ineptitude.

Also, science, of which you appear to be quite fond, is meant to produce truth; the success of this process depends upon disinterested skepticism. Observer's looking at the same phenomena come to different conclusions, both of which are most likely flawed. But the mean of these observations will probably be more accurate. The more observations added, the more accurate the conclusion. By telling me and your other opponent to "preach elsewhere," you become an obstacle in the scientific search for truth.

Again, no proof has been provided. You may content yourself with having added to the discussion, but you have not proven anything.

Finally, you say, "Save it for the ignorant who fill pews and do not question." Questioning is precisely what I am doing, disinterestedly and fairly.

Let us remain civil, lest we descend into that method of intellectual discourse so beloved by those who use Youtube, full of generalizations and pejorative terms for homosexuals.

Once More/Okie Dokie

You asked, "Did you really mean to write that?"

Indeed, I did mean to write that. First of all, there are many ways of reconciling a loving God's existence with the presence of suffering in the world. There is the whole "free-will" thing. There is the argument that the existences of good and evil are reciprocally contingent. Etc. I think a discussion whether or not these reconciliations are successful would be more constructive than simply calling my assertion "an idiotic thing to say."
I actually do not mind seeing my beliefs challenged in the least. I am actually thankful for it. Human progress depends upon it. This is why I have taken the time to refute your claims. I believe such is the right thing to do.

To anonymous "better pt 2"

It is you who misunderstand. For your information, again, these are the reasons for my stories and essays:

A) Fundamentalists say the bible is the inerrant word of the one and only true god, and as such is without error (inerrant), therefore all--you, I, and everyone else should be boiund by the law of Leviticus.
B) Fundamentalist preachers and politicians, et.al., not only believe, but say that even now all who are not heterosexual should be subjected to the punishment as given in Leviticus, to wit, killed. (See my first essay for some of the quotes from preachers, politicians, and even celebrities.)
C) Therefore the bible is not without error. (See other essays for even more errors itemized.)

Obviiously, as stated by me elsewhere, all my works are intended to help lesbians who have been traumatized by the fools that say the bible is inerrant and that they therefore must follow the rules or should be considered for extermination according to the law of Leviticus, etc.

My quarrel is with those who push this agenda, preachers, polititicians, celebreties, etc.

I'm not here to debate whether there is or is not a god. Frankly, if there is one, we don't, and most likely can't know it on any objective level of consciousness. We may believe we do, or can, on a spiritual level (which is not definable).

For us, there is no god for us to percieve otherwise, save individually if at all, therefore to say to one and all that god is perfect is something we cannot possibly do or say. You may believe it, but cannot state it categorically.

What I can, and do say is that the god in the bible is no god at all, and the bible is, contrary to what fundamentalists say, full of errors.

Fundamentalists use the known bible to push their agenda which includes death to anyone who is other that heterosexual.

Now what is it that ;you don't get about what I am saying?

I'm not interested in philosophical or theological debates, so end it, K?

As to what I am saying, and providing proofs of, is that the fundamentalists are wrong in saying as they do that the known bible is inerrant, and if you can't see the proofs that show those errrors in profusion, then I don't know what else I can tell you ohter than to pull your head out of the sand. Period.

Now if you can prove that any of the proofs I've given are wrong, then state your proofs, or go away.

I will drop it.

You have not yet addressed my argument, which is that:

A.) Science and recorded history are products of humanity, and the Bible is the product of God.
B.) If God indeed exists, he/she is perfect. Humanity is imperfect.
C.) The perfect being's narrative is more likely to be correct.

Now, my main goal is not to prove that the Bible is inerrant. I'm not sure it is. But you say you have proven that it has errors, when there are possible realities in which it is inerrant that you have not proven to be impossible. My assertion is that you have not successfully proven its fictiveness.

You're syllogism is flawed. The argument presented therein(correct me if I am wrong) is that the Bible is flawed because God sanctions immoral action in its pages. But if the Biblical God is real, none of his actions are immoral because God IS morallity. Again, this goes back to the whole perception discrepancy. Basically, what we perceive as immoral doesn't matter because we aren't the judges, God is.

Now, I am going to drop this. Our argument is not producing anything new and has ceased to be productive. It is quickly turning into "I'm right," "No I'm right." It is best we end it here.

I think ultimately our message is similar: blind faith is flawed. I support you're efforts to encourage those who don't identify with traditional gender categorization. Basically, I think the manifestations of your beliefs are good, and if I disagree a bit with the way you got there, that's okay.

some reservations

I agree with your point, but I must say that it is not logically airtight. If your premises are true, you're conclusion, that the Bible is fictive, could still be false.