Fundamentalists and the Bible 03

Just to be certain about it, there is no proof of there being a God, nor is there any proof that there isn't a God. No one knows one way or the other.

Further, all of those books of the Old and New Testament with names given to them, no one knows who actually wrote any of them. Yes, there probably was an Isaiah and a Jeremiah, even a Paul, and Paul may have written some of his letters, but certainly not all of them as researchers have proven.

Tthere may have actually been a Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the books ascribed to them do not say specifically that they were written by them personally. In fact, no one knows who wrote them, or even who actually may have been Mark or Luke, or for that matter, who was the John whose name is on a gospel and the Revelation. Matthew is a somewhat known quantity, but not that he was the one who wrote the gospel that bears his name.

Further, it is now well accepted that the book of Isaiah was written by two, and possibly three or more people. There are very famous and often quoted verses in that book—chapter 53, verses 4 through 6 about being "wounded for our transgression" —that just about every preacher quotes as referring to Jesus, and it being prophetic and written by Isaiah.

What is odd about this is that chapter 53 is well out of the reach of the known real, or original, Isaiah's writings, and is well into those writings of the second Isaiah, whoever that person was. No one has any idea, yet his writing is venerated as one of the main words of God for Christianity.

It is accepted because it serves the churches to not tell anyone that this is from an unknown Isaiah that someone just decided to paste onto the original Isaiah's writings (if the real Isaiah really wrote the book of Isaiah—no one really knows that for sure). However, we can be sure that some of these itinerant and ignorant preachers are not familiar with the several Isaiah's. We have to wonder about whether or not those with regular congregations know of this. For sure, many do, and they are the biggies who don't care whether or not their followers know what they do, just as long as they believe and tithe, or give whatever they can.

Talk about pulling the wool over the eyes of the ignorant followers, and keeping them ignorant, and all the while preaching it as if from the first Isaiah.

That's a time honored tradition though. The Catholic Church didn't allow the laity to read the Bible. They wanted them to go through their priest for scripture. That kept everything safe and tidy for them.

Even Luther, a time-honored personage seen as someone who really wanted things to be as they should be, hated reason, but there were other things he hated too. He is said to believe that reason was the enemy of faith. Reason leads to questions, and again, that's what he, or any of them, didn't want.

Calvin was tolerant of other beliefs, just not in his own bailiwick. There, if one opposed him, he had them killed off.

Questions are verboten more than strenuously, even to this date.

All of the above is taken on "faith", period! Tell it to them, and tell them that it is from God's holy word, and not to question it. That faith, blind belief, is of old, and obviously false in the Old Testament in so far as it being the word of God and without error. That, in fact, makes the New Testament, which is born of the Old Testament, also false and most of it also unverifiable and definitely not without error. No, the New Testament, like its progenitor, is full of errors.

That 'faith" has morphed into willful blindness, a conscious, or semi-conscious refusal to admit to what the eye tells the mind is before it.

There was a commentator on Essay #2 who ridiculed my use of a word indicating a vast number of animals that could only have applied to Noah and the ark. What that commentator didn't say was anything about chapter 6 and chapter 7 of Genesis giving different versions of how many of each animal was taken into the ark.

That's disingenuous if ever anything was. No, that's most likely not willful blindness, but most likely an intended deceit, something to put a question in the reader's mind as to whether or not what their eyes told them was really there. Then again, maybe it was willful blindness. Only the writer of the comment knows for sure, but we'll never know as that person commented anonymously.

Many have called the Old Testament myths of the Jews. Is this true? Was Jonah swallowed by a whale?

Would you believe Joshua? There is a Jewish myth that parallels Jonah being swallowed by a whale (which also reads as if an unbelievable myth), as well as a great many other myths. If you don't believe this, look for "Legends of the Jews" by no less an author than Rabbi Louis Ginzberg, a highly respected rabbi and author, scholar and expert in Judaism in his day. In fact, he has several volumes of these legends. How many might be in the Old Testament, we have no idea for certain, but...

What all this is intended to say, and to prove, is that when Fundamentalist preachers and believers say that the Bible is the word of God and without error, that is as false as can be—that we've already proven in the first essay, as well as the second essay. They use this belief to push, in our modern day, an agenda of making our laws the same laws as laid down in the Old Testament, and therefore to kill any who disobey them, including their expanded belief that Lesbians, Gays, Transgenders, Transsexuals, Transvestites, and even those born Intersex are included in this prohibition though the Bible doesn't specify it (as Pat Robertson, one of the weirdest fundamentalists of all, indicates it should if anything is to be prohibited).

They blatantly ignore openly obvious errors in their saying that the Bible is inerrant (is absolutely without any error) as has already been shown in the first two essays to be wrong, particularly the fable of Noah and his ark which has two very different and distinct versions, the one in chapter 6 of Genesis, and the other following on its heels in chapter 7 as mentioned earlier here.

What we probe here is whether the Bible truly is the error free word of God as Christian Fundamentalists say it is, and if not, why, or where it isn't. This, again, is done because of the recent high profile screaming that fundamentalists have done in opposition to same-sex marriage which they say is against God's word and wishes. If this "God" that they promote is true and error free, then they might have cause, but if their "God" is full of errors, then they have no cause whatsoever. Please note the vast number of errors already found in the first two essays.

Of just as great an importance to the many who read these essays is whether or not one truly wishes to believe what some unknown and nebulous people wrote or not. Personally, I can't see believing in some unknown person's writings about a god such as is portrayed in the Old Testament as being so vengeful and genocidal. If any were not raised in this culture, and read stories such as we are told in the Bible, I seriously doubt that anyone would believe them. We'd be looking at them with different eyes, eyes unaltered by our culture. Those stories would be just that—stories.

On a personal note, I am but someone who was once ignorant of these facts, and at one time a believer pretty much as the Fundamentalists preach (that is, that the Bible is God's word). No longer. Now I not only question, but have been reading verse-by-verse in the bible with a very objective eye and mind, as well as a very questioning one.

None need be traumatized, shamed, humiliated, or terrorized by these preachers who are purveyors of falsehoods, and quite frankly, many of the major ones for their own personal gain, the need of feeling powerful in controlling lives, as well as for pure greed. A search through the Internet will bear this out, as will some of the fancy, never used by Jesus or his disciples, clothing intended to magnify the wearer's so-called importance.

Jesus rode no fine steed, nor wore fancy clothes and definitely not a fish-head cap on his head to proclaim to one and all who he was. If he were here today, as he is portrayed, he'd not be riding in a limousine, nor own a huge house and have a Mercedes for his wife, or himself. His disciples wouldn't be wearing fancy clothes, and seeking to make sure no one got close to him, nor asked him any embarrassing questions.

In this exposure of the lies, the telling of the truth of those lies, is very important for many lesbians are put through an unfair wringer, their lives and their inner desires shredded by these purveyors of the lies. It is high time that lesbians stop being shamed, humiliated, tormented, and traumatized by these ignorant preachers as well as by the rich and greedy ones. The same goes for gays, transgenders, transsexuals, and those who are intersex.

All that said, let's look at some more of what really is in the Bible, or as Liv says in The Devil's Gateway, the truth of the lies.

In the first essay which covered the first eight (8) chapters of Genesis, and the second essay which covered from chapter nine (9) through half of chapter eighteen (18), there have been found a total of eighty-five (85) pretty easy to see major errors, and twenty (20) probable errors. Doubtless I have missed some errors; however it only takes one (1) error to prove the Fundamentalists wrong.

This being so, we definitively know that the Bible is not as the Fundamentalists portray it. Here now are some of the errors starting with the last half of chapter 18, from verse 22 where we left off in the previous essay:

Chapter 18

22 So the men turned from there, and went towards Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord.

23 Then Abraham came near and said, 'Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it?

25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?

26 And the Lord said, 'If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.'

27 Abraham answered, 'Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

28 Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?' And he said, 'I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.'

29 Again he spoke to him, 'Suppose forty are found there.' He answered, 'For the sake of forty I will not do it.'

30 Then he said, 'Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.' He answered, 'I will not do it, if I find thirty there.'

31 He said, 'Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.' He answered, 'For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.'

32 Then he said, 'Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.' He answered, 'For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.'

33 And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

Shades of Noah and his ark; but wait, there is more. Destroy it all for there is wickedness.

If you're as most of us are, or were, the Bible was sacrosanct, or too important to be interfered with. That's how I was raised, and as far as I know, every other person that professed Christianity felt the same way. Even some doctors and scientists of various sorts still feel that way.

On our Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia firmly believes that same thing from all of his pronouncements to the public. Probably some other justices do too, just not as publicly as Justice Scalia.

As we are about to see, this will come under the scrutiny of looking for the truth of the matter versus what men wish us to believe. No, nothing will be pronounced as a major error unless there is good and visible proof of it, but we're about to look at who may have written at least some parts of the Bible, and why.

Yes, it has to do with what is described as the depravity of mankind in a very sexual way, however let's keep in mind what many psychologists and psychiatrists say about too often, and too strongly objecting to something, or someone. Even Shakespeare is quoted as saying something like, "Me thinks he/she doth protest too much," or something close to that.

In other words, if it was men who actually wrote the Bible (considering all the errors we have already seen that are easily verifiable), we have to wonder at why they wrote parts of it as they did. Bear with me on this, and at the end, consider it carefully, and whether or not these men are simply afraid of their sexuality, or fearful of being taken homosexually as probably often did happen in those early days.

If they had reason, it's understandable, but to promulgate it vociferously just because that's the fear they had back when, and use the old rules of Jewish men to back up their present day fears is wrong in every sense of the modern word.

What was dictated as a law back then was married to another law and practice that is wrong in every sense of the modern word, and that is treating women as property, chattel, personal property the same as was slavery in our Civil War days, to be done with as pleased the owner, or man, be he husband or father, or simply guardian. This, as has already been shown, will be seen in a few of the verses herein quoted.

Yes, the one goes with the other, and both are wrong for our day, yet perhaps in the days of the Jews it wasn't wrong, or at least had some semblance of rationale. Where, though, does that rationale of old end? You'll have to be the judges in your own minds on this, as well as whether or not the Bible is God's word and wholly without error.

Again, this is said because of the statements that are being made in our day—our present day—by preachers and politicians alike, or given damaging approving lip service to this out of date idea and all in the name of religion passed down through our ages culturally though much is being found to prove it wrong, including these essays using the Bible itself in many, if not most of the cases cited.

Let's continue for a short while and see what happens next. Please keep in mind that five asterisks *****are used to indicate a major error, and two asterisks ** indicate a probable error.

Genesis 19

The Depravity of Sodom

1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground.

2 He said, 'Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way.' They said, 'No; we will spend the night in the square.'

3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Just a note here: Why "unleavened" bread already. Wasn't this a special sign the Jews were to follow in Moses' day for the Passover? It is noted here as something not mentioned as yet in the Bible, or a reason for it. Check any concordance of the Bible and you will see that this is the first mention of it period. Why?

Is it a sign, a signature, as forensic criminologists say is an identifier of one who does a particular thing in a particular way, in their case, a criminal who commits a crime in his or her special way that identifies an identifier of the perpetrator? In this case, someone who knows about unleavened bread being used, but in Moses' time (see Exodus, chapter 12, verse 8 for the second time this word is used in the Bible).

This is a signature of someone who is familiar with "unleavened" bread because it is from the time said to be when Moses directed it to be made without leavening. This being the case, we have here proof positive that a man, or men, at a later date, wrote this. If Moses had written it, he would not have used the word "unleavened" here as it wasn't commanded by God as yet. As such, this is a major error. *****

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;

5 and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.'

Just as a comment, "know them" is commonly accepted to be the Bible's way of saying so we can "have sex" with them. FYI for any that may not be familiar with this usage.

6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,

7 and said, 'I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.

8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.'

This, then, is the "marriage" of ideas or ways that I mentioned earlier.

First, Abram gave his wife, Sarai, to Pharaoh's use. It was good of him to tell her before that he intended to do that, yet it is still behaving as if a woman, wife or not, is nothing but chattel, property, to be done with as the man pleases.

In this case, Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the men to rape—make that gang rape—but don't touch the men. Later on it would be told to the Jews to be kind to strangers for they too were once strangers in a strange land. It was taken to mean that they were to be protected from others of the town, village, etc., but to the extent of offering up one's virginal daughters? That's ludicrous.

Also, this wasn't after Egypt when Jews were strangers in a strange land as they were in their so-called captivity, and this law hadn't been proclaimed as such yet. That makes this an error in the Bible for it was put in there by a man who knew of the injunction when it was given and ascribed it to Lot in his so-called day. *****

Wait, some say, these were angels, or God himself. Ah, but Judges, chapter 19 reveals the lie in anyone who thinks that, for if any will look, a Jew offered his daughter and the concubine of the stranger-man the "men of the city" decided they wanted, were offered in his stead to "do with them as seemeth good unto you, but unto this man do not so vile a thing." (King James Version, but same in other bibles)

Cute, isn't it? Don't do so "vile" a thing to him, but do as you wish with his maiden daughter and the man's concubine. Here we see clearly how women were as chattel, slaves, who were to do anything the man who literally owned them said to do, whether they wanted to or not.

Yes, it sounds more than familiar doesn't it? Oh, the concubine was said to be found dead in the morning (see the book of Judges, chapter 19, verses 22 thru 30). This was all due, many say, because Jews were honor bound to protect strangers in their house as I mentioned. Protect them by giving up your virgin daughter for them to sexually use and abuse as they please?

This is another signature, and not in any book said to have been written by Moses. This is the work of man, or men, not of any god. Then again, this god did order genocide after the Exodus.

In any event, this is a major error that is undeniable. *****

Also, why wasn't it said that this same demand was made of Lot when he first entered the city? A convenient omission that is glaring in the light of seeing whatever it is that the men who wrote this Bible wanted to be known, whatever their reason was, but a glaring thing to think of anyway. Think of it.

All that being said and pointed out, this then is how the Jews of that day thought and felt—it is the men that are important, and the women are simply sows to be used to breed with, and very expendable.