Confession of a former christian

quote:

---

Haha, iano you just confirmed my atheism again. Yup, that's why I'm an atheist.

---

Actually, one has to see the other side of the coin, before concluding. Finding errors in one religion, does not prove the motion ascribed by the video: he still has an even greater problem than every religion, including those based on evidential myth. Negating everything, even if that negation is vindicated, does not favour the motion by itself.There is the inexplicable X factor - even so noted by the greatest of scientists, including Newton and Einstein. Now let's examine some of the factors mentioned which was rejected in the reasonings of that author.1. That man was sited as made from dirt/dust.This is hardly what is ascribed in genesis, when its context is considered. The heb term for dust is an appropriate one, written for all generations of mankind, and representative of the status quo of this generation, namely pointing to particles, molescules and other sub-atomic structures. Here, there is a total backing by state of art science and biology, that humans [as are all life], organic and made from the earthly elements. Had it not been so, then science itself would be dismissable, but science evidences genesis' statement as correct. Fact is, when the OT was first translated to another language [300 BCE/Septuagint] - there was simply no word or notion of the relevent hebrew word, and it was stated as 'dust'; there is also no word such as scuds in the OT. I thus challenge anyone to nominate a better explanation than the one used in genesis, and let it apply to all generations, including one 4000 years ago, and one also applicable 5000 years from today?2. Massacres in ancient times.Ancient Egypt was sited. The omission was that this was in fact not a genocidal massacre as portrayed, but its reverse - namely a response to a prolonged, sustained genocide by the egyptians. The other omission was, that these type of wars were commonplace in primitive ancient times, throughout the world, in effect vindicating the genesis report as 100% truthful: some wars, due to ancient superstitions, forbade the taking of prisoners. Occultism prevailed in those times, to the extent that during a crisis, a parent or a king would sacrifice their most cherished child to offset a calamity. There were beliefs of spells and spirits which would linger if certain enemies were not totally inihilated, including children - its reasoning was not mere cruelty, but a wrong or primitive reasoning. In fact, we cannot even say wrong and primitive here - those who did these things were our own ancesters, and if we lived in those times, we would absolutely agree with it. One must examine the situation w/o today's knowledge, else it is not a scientific or truthful understanding. One must also examine the texts as an intergrated one, as opposed to cherry picking what can be made to look blatantly bad, with little deep thought and knowledge. This does not mean we can condone those attrocities today, but it is less than scientific or prudent to depict it in such shallow terms. The OT is not a candy-coated document, but the world's most honest and historically vindicated writings in existence. Its first quality is truth and factual: those kind of genocides were commonplace. The miracles sited therein [a topic on its own], must be regarded with its millions of factual stats and specs throughout its verses, and given at a juncture of humanity when advanced alphebtical books never existed for a 1000 years after. Grammar itself was introduced here. The reprt of the ancient egptian's diets, and the travel distance from Goshen to Median - is authetically vindicated; the 1000s of names in generations, is also scientifically accurate. the author is not saying these are not true or accurate, but that he does not like what is said, a view made from this generation.3. Age.This was sited in the video, with no reference what it applied to. But there is an astonishing factor with the ages and datings given in the OT, which defies anything else as its equivalence. Consider that genesis declares that speech endowed humans are less than 6,000 years old [many eronously think this refers to the age of the earth]. Now we must admit, this is a high risk, bold declaration to make by any ancient writings, and that it did not have to take such risks. But the astonishing part is, it is 100% vindicated today. We have not a single 'name' older than 6000, not a single writing, not even history per se. This does not become dented by some alledged finds such as cave markings and agriculture imprints; that there is even a 50% chance of genesis being correct, or debatable, is an astonishment. Which writings any place can say such? And why do we find that world populations and human mental prowess match only the genesis datings? How come the Hebrew calendar is the oldest and most accurate of all calendars even upto today? I list these factors while the video did not give reasons for its age rejections.4. Hell.Here, the notion of hell is not an OT premise; in fact there is no reference to the afterlife in the OT, and we find this knowledge is elusive to all, including science - vindicating the OT's silence. The author of the video mentions that he upholds deeds over belief. Does he realise that this is the exact advocation of the OT, which gives no immunity to one belonging to any religion? What does 'only the soul that sinneth it shall pay' - mean, when no religion is sighted, and no exit clause allowed for kneeling or prostrating in its stead?The author hails science, while not realising where this faculty emerged from. The OT is the first doc which declared:That the universe is finite [it had a beginning]. That entropy occured [formless became form]; the light is a primodial force; that this planet underwent critical changes to anticipate life [seperation of water and land; day from night; etc]; evolution [the first recording of the chronological emergence of life forms, from veg, water, air, land to humans]; speciation [via the seed factor, able to tranmit all imprints including skeletal and dna]; medicine [the first seperation of this faculty from the occult, with the ID, treatment and quarantine of contagious, infecticious and malignancies/leprosy]; Grammar; the first alphabetical books; judiciary laws; Creationism [which still reigns a surpreme premise, with no alternative on the table]; Monotheism - the most logical premise ever contemplated.One cannot even mention science w/o the OT. what appears to be the case, is a belief in a creator source is inherently known and felt by all life forms [including atheists], but this is also the easiest trait to exploit. All religions cannot be right. But it is manifest the OT is the world's most astonishing and mysterious document in existence.

quote:

---

It might be about God, and it might be a story of a peoples search for God, but it is not 'God's word'.

---

It is still inexplicable, how a document can record historical events and 1000's of names, dob's, dods and locations - for a period of 2500 years before its contemporary time - and be vindicated. Such details were not available in libraries or recallable; in fact there were no historical writings or alphabetical books before that time and for a 1000 years thereafter. That a small, ever wondering nation, which came late on the scene, did so, while other mightier and older nations did not - is an anomoly. It is not condusive to man's writing ability either, thus a mystery.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As an O.T. expert, Joe, could you give us an approximate figure for the average number of factual stats per. word achieved in the book?

---

I did give examples - you never disproved any of them. i say, there is no document in existence with more vindicated, factual statements than the OT. If you want to know the travel time from Goshen to Pithom, or whether the universe is finite - then there is only one document. Correcting with a spellcheck does not impact here.

No sir. There are many dictionaries and encyclopedia, and they all define what is already known, as in an archive library. If you read therein the definition of FINITE applied to the universe - then also know where this was first recorded - in the opening preamble of Genesis over 3000 years ago. Thus you see it in dictionaries.One cannot pass two verses in the OT wherein a historical fact is not seen - for the first time too, and vindicated by new discoveries almost on a weekly basis. This is the only document which speaks in authentic and contemporary terms, with specificity of dates, places and names. The earliest 'names' are in the OT: we have no names dated more than 6000; no writings; no recallings; no history per se. Co-incidence?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Or was the "millions of facts" bit what might be generously described as wild exaggeration, and less generously described as "bullshitting"?

---

No exaggeration, except from your own adaptation of my words.The OT is a most mysterious, inexplicable document, vaired from all others by kind than degree. It is made for all generations of mankind, talking to and of peoples in spacetimes 6000, 3000, 2000 years and today. In most forums today, the most robust debates concern the two premises of evolution [ToE or the genesis mode], and almost all debates on religions are pointedly aimed at the OT.What this means is, as each generation discusses this document, they find layers of meanings applicable to them. An OT verse is thus impacting manifold scenarious and subjects. If you consider the diets of the ancient egyptians are listed for the first time in the OT, this verse impacts on numerous sciences, botany, archeology, history and geographical premises, including the religious criteria of egypt, their agricultures, as well as which food products were used in ancient times. We know, because of the OT, the egyptians did not speak Hebrew, despite their close historical connection with canaan; this says canaanites did not speak hebrew, despite that canaan was also closely associated with the phoenecians.Do you see the far reaching power of a verse which is authentic and contemporary, where none else exists of that kind for a 1000 years later? Do you see the power of this for science and history? Each verse represents an encyclopedia, and it becomes expanded on every reading; and it appears its verses are contained with that goal, cntaining terms such as everlasting.It is the first alphabetical book, and believed by more humans than any other, and harkened by more scientists and historians than any other document. This despite that religious writings are at an all time low today.

The OT is the most volumous scripture with pristine grammar, numerals embedded in the alphabets.It spurned two other religions, and all nation's judiciary institutions are based on its laws - to the extent not a single law comes from any other place. So work out just with those two factors how many millions of stats and specs have evolved from this source. That there were no alphabetical books around till many centuries later - means almost all nations were influenced from this document alone. Its not a small incidental factor, but a pivotal one for humanity.

Ur-Nammu, and many of its laws, were most plausably brought to Canaan by Abraham. I agree precedent rules, and that those laws were advanced for its space-time. The OT was a late comer on the scene, and its laws are not the first, but the oldest and active, and the most comprehensive set of laws today or at any time before. This in no way means there was no wisdom or rightious ones before or outside the OT: the pyramids predate Abraham 1200 years, and so does the law of circumsizion, used as a then authentic means of executing a contract or vow. There were also seven valid laws in Noah's time, which even predate all others, and some of these not included any place else aside from the OT.Murder, stealing, adultry - even incest, predated the OT. Here, the OT acts as the document which affirms a correct law and excludes incorrect laws - a greater feat than imagined. One can copy MC2 - but how many can edit and correct it? The OT is also the only one which is historically based with specifics of identifiable dates, names and places, and the first alphabetical books - a document with multiple pages and a continueing narrative.The stand out feature here is, the world's institutions, including the US Constitution, were derived from the OT exclusively. The reason is that this was continuously active, and did not contain incorrect laws or head bashing deities battling for supremecy. The OT is the first document which forbade human sacrifice, and the factor which made monotheism prevail polytheism.With the aztecs, till their latest and recent times [less than 2500 years], they were steeped in human sacrfices on a mass scale and in horrific modes: 100s of 1000s of children's burnt and staked skeletals have been discovered, so this nation was still barbaric 500 years after King David reigned. The wrong laws says more than the correct laws.

Nation, IMHO, refers to a belief system, ethnicity or a race of peoples, and is not limited by state borders.

These Ur-derived laws, considering their ancient period, mark humanity's earliest grapples with right and wrong. An interesting factor here is, none of these, or even other subsequent law codes, included any animal rights laws, while there are some 20 animal rights laws in the OT, even stemming from Noah's time, including:NOT TO CONSUME A LIVE ANIMAL'S PARTS; TO FEED ONE'S ANIMAL BEFORE THEMSELVES; NOT TO MUZZLE AN ANIMAL; NOT TO LEAVE A HOLE IN THE GROUND OF AN ANIMAL'S VICINITY [SAFE CONDITIONS]; NOT TO OVERLOAD AN ANIMAL; NOT TO TAKE THE MOTHER WITH THE OFFSPRING; NOT TO MIX A MOTHER'S MEAT WITH HER OFFSPRING'S MILK; TO APPREHEND ONE BEING CRUEL TO AN ANIMAL [EVEN IF IT IS ONE'S ENEMY]; ETC.I think these laws say a lot of a law book's intents and sensibilities. The 613 OT laws also contain environmental laws [not to destroy a food bearing tree, even during a war], which point to an elevated outlook for humanity. All animal rights laws, in their entirety, come from the OT - I appreciate this and it makes me thing in a deeper level.

quote:

---

Among the surviving laws are the following:

​

1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. (4 in some translations)
8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver. (5)
9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver. (6)
10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver. (7)
11. If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver. (8)
13. If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels. (10)
14. If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver. (11)
15. If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought. (12)
17. If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him. (14)
18. If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out a mina of silver. (15)
19. If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels. (16)
20. If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver. (17)
21. If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver. (18)
22. If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver. (19)
24. [...] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver. If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him. (21)
25. If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt. (22)
28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver. (25)
29. If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case. (26)
30. If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses. (27)
31. If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (28)
32. If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (29)

---

Sure, one does not need two 's' alphabets at the end.

quote:

---

Are you labouring under the impression that the sentence above means something in English?

---

No, I'm not labouring and my breathing remains at a good steady pace. It means as follows:

quote:

---

Actually, [nation's] is the singular possessive, and [nations'] is the plural possessive.

---

Alice.

quote:

---

Incorrect. The very first amendment to the Constitution is a direct violation of the OT law:

​

Freedom of religion.

​

In fact, the very first words of the Constitution are a direct violation of the OT law:

​

We the People.

​

In fact, the Constitution directly contradicts the Bible:

​

Article VI: ...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

​

The only mentions of religion made in the Constitution are to expressly deny it.

​

Where did you get this idea that the Constitution is based upon OT law?

---

There is no violation, only seperation of state and religion, and this comes from the OT. The King and the prophet of the day had equal rights: King David had to seccumb to the prophet Nathan's verdict on a charge of adultry - a process unknown any place else, even till today. The prophet reps the people. There are no laws in the NT - all laws come from the OT, world-wide, and exclusively: amazing but true.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OT is the first document which forbade human sacrifice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. In fact, the OT directly commands human sacrifice.

​

Have you forgotten Isaac?

---

It says 'offer', not sacrifice, and this was stopped.

quote:

---

Have you forgotten Jephthah who entreats god to help him smite the Ammonites and in return, he will sacrifice the first person who comes out of his doors:

​

Judges 11:31: Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

​

God, of course, takes him up on the offer and delivers the Ammonites unto Jephthah. And who should greet him when he comes home?

​

His daughter.

​

Whom he sacrificed to god.

---

Human sacrifice is forbidden in the OT. That King made an error by swearing to God, when sacrifice was forbidden. A king cannot swear by God and break his word [
No to take the name in vain'] - he could not be stopped, and paid a big price.

quote:

---

and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit

---

This relates to spoils of war, not human sacrifice.In fact, even animal sacrifice was forbidden as an anullment of sins and crimes. Animal sacrifice was only permitted when a crime's perpertrator could not be determined and for a thangsgiving sacrifice; these too were limited to the temple, and this ceased when the temple fell, ending humanity's tradition of this act.

Iliad and the Odyssey are not alphabetical books, nor are these vested in history - they are stageplays, and their datings unconfirmable. The greek begat alpha beta's in 300 BCE, from the Hebrew alef bet, when they became the first to translate the OT [Josephus Docs]. There is no greek alphabeticals before that date.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There was no Greek alphabet before 300BCE??? Greek is derived from Hebrew??? Dear God, you are stupid.

---

It is not my opnion: I quoted a source [Josephus], and stated a date 300 BCE. Now you can counter it by showing us greek alphabeticals pre-300 BCE.Here's some more: democrasy was NOT a greek innovation; what is translated as democrasy in greek history was NOT democrasy. Democrasy comes from the OT laws.