Here continues by write-by- write refutation of the mindless inanity that is the Bible.
EXODUS
How is it, as Voltaire asked, that the Nile could be transformed into a river of blood, an angel slaughtered each the first-born children in Egypt, the ocean parted with its waters suspended on either side, and no author mentioned it except for a tiny barbaric acres thousands of years after the event?
i.5: This verse title of respects that all the souls that came bulge out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls when in Act{ vii.14 it gives the number as 75.
i.18-20: God dealt well with the midwives because they lied to the Pharaoh. This goes contrary to the ninth pedagogy of Ex.xx.16 and Dt.v.20 which states Thou shalt not bear false witness. Prov.xii.22 decl bes that Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord and Rev.xxi.18 promises that All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.
ii.12: Moses kills an Egyptian and then hides the body.
ii.15: If Moses was adopted into royalty as it claims in verse 10, why did the Pharaoh insufficiency to have him punish? Surely royalty didnt consider the killing of a unsullied workman as terribly significant. Nevertheless, it states hither that Moses fled from the face of the Pharaoh which contradicts Heb.xi.27 which declares that he did not in fact fear the wrath of the king.
ii.17: This verse contradicts iii.1 which states that his father-in-law was Jethro, not Reuel.
ii.21: Here Moses marries Zipporah, daughter of the priest of Midian, but in Num.xii.1 for some reason it states twice in one verse that he married an Ethiopian.
ii.25: God had respect unto the Israelites. This contradicts several(prenominal) verses that claim that the Almighty respects no one.
iii.1: Moses married a Midrianite despite...
This was rattling well researched, however, I dont accept any biblical cognition that is not taken from the original textual matter, and this is a study from English, as Midrash it is trash. Also, the author seems to have missed the boat on several important points (ie polygamy and the figurative language often used by the narrator of the text.) This author needs to take a countywide study of Judaism and how to critically read the Tanakh before publishing such(prenominal) a work.
The Bible being a text of controversy, it is inwardly reasonable expectation to have certain inconsequential flaws. Yet, as many other books, it is a prose, utilizing figurative language to stool a particular effect (metaphoric if you please). Off the point, I am assuming this was written with the intention of persuasion, yet calling believers of this text Crazed American fundmentalists who believe that in eating wafers they are consuming the body of a 2,000 year-deceased Palestinian really quite defeats the purpose. I find your entire refutations irrational; optimistically speaking.
In all seriousness, have you any inclination to repeat your thorough efforts here to refute other prominent works of major knowledge domain religions; such as the Bhagavad-Gita, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon? to a greater extent so, would you come to similar conclusions of their mindless insanity?
Only crazed American fundmentalists who believe that in eating wafers they are consuming the body of a 2,000 year-deceased Palestinian could complain. You are obviously using the english of the KJV, not commenting on the original Judeaic as some other argued. Outstanding!
If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.
0 comments:
Post a Comment