Easter Quiz, by Donald Morgan

[iwilljankyou]

in the easter quiz half of it is out of context, or is a misinterpretation of the story .the other half i didn't read. example.for the tomb and angel question it says that there was one and two in a different place. that is legitamate,but it proves that the authors used separate sources of information and didn't plagerize from each other.they all agree that there was an angel and they all agree that Jesus had risen from the dead. now that we know that there were four witnesses that didn't plagerize from each other, how could four people tell the same story but not plagerize unless they had been actual witnesses or had known actual witnesses?

[iwilljankyou]

you people are idiots.

in the easter quiz ,half of it is out of context, or is a misinterpretation of the story .the other half i didn't read. example.for the tomb and angel question it says that there was one and two in a different place. that is legitamate,but it proves that the authors used separate sources of information and didn't plagerize from each other.they all agree that there was an angel and they all agree that Jesus had risen from the dead. now that we know that there were four witnesses that didn't plagerize from each other, how could four people tell the same story but not plagerize unless they had been actual witnesses or had known actual witnesses?

[-DM-]

One should be careful when calling someone else an idiot lest it seem to others that the person doing the name-calling is more of an idiot than is the person who is the object of the name-calling. I might ask, for example, whether you had read the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10)--as you should have--and if so, what it was that you didn't understand about it given that:

1) You submitted essentially the same thing twice, apparently expecting what you submitted to show up immediately (when the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) makes it clear that the Feedback Forum is fully moderated and that feedback submissions do not show up immediately after being submitted).

2) You neglected to provide the name of the author (as required by the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10)).

--

In any case, I assume that your feedback has to do with my Easter Quiz (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=282).

in the easter quiz , [sic] half of it is out of context....All of it is out of context in the sense that the cited verses are taken out of the context of the surrounding verses. That fact in no way refutes the point that the various authors disagree on the details of the story.

...or is a misinterpretation of the story . [sic] There is no interpretation of the story going on in "Easter Quiz." It is a series of questions and applicable Bible-verse answers.

For the tomb and angel question it says that there was one and two in a different place. that is legitamate, [sic] but it proves that the authors used separate sources of information and didn't plagerize [sic] from each other.It proves no such thing. What it proves, and this is all that it proves, is that the authors disagree on the details of the story. As a matter of fact, it is generally agreed by biblical scholars that Mark was the first of the Gospels, and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as well as an additional source or sources, one of which was the so-called Q (from the German Quelle) document. It is generally agreed by biblical scholars that Matthew considerably embellished Mark in many notable instances.

Now that we know that there were four witnesses that didn't plagerize [sic] from each other....Biblical scholars believe that just the opposite is likely the case even though the various authors did not always agree.

how could four people tell the same story but not plagerize [sic] unless they had been actual witnesses or had known actual witnesses?It would be a very simple matter for a perfect and omnipotent "God" to see to it that the authors of the books which were to be considered "The Word of God" got their details straight. If you think otherwise, than you deny the alleged omnipotence of "God."

-DM-

[lazcatluc]

Don, I don't get it! Why do you put up with kind of messages? it does not consitute legitimate feedback, it does not abide by the general forum rules and is very impolite. I can understand that you want to be as fair as possible with "the other side" but still, this should not be posted or responded to IMHO...

[-DM-]

Hello lazcatluc,

There is often a question as to where to draw the line with regard to what does and does not get posted as feedback. As the one and only moderator of the Feedback Forum, it is left to me to decide.

Note that the general forum rules apply only to the discussion board, not to Secular Web feedback; the only "rules" that apply to feedback are those stated in the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10). So far as I am concerned, there is nothing about the feedback in question which directly violates those rules other than that the author of the feedback, willjankyou, did not supply the name of the author of the article. He/she did, however, supply the title of the article (indirectly), thus making it possible to identify the article and its author (me). When I can identify the article to which feedback applies, providing that there is any specific criticism at all, I post that feedback.

It isn't just a question of being fair to the other side; it is also a question of being relatively unbiased--and of avoiding charges of bias. Beyond that, it gives me and/or other authors a chance to respond to the kinds of criticism which typically come from religionists. In some cases, it even serves to allow the person supplying feedback to shoot him/herself in the foot; I think that such is the case here. And finally, some will find the exchange both interesting and illuminating.

You need not agree with my judgement or opinions, of course.

Regards,
-Don-

[NdOfWrldAsWeNoIt]

It is every easy for someone to point a finger at the Bible and say that it is untrue. They say that if indeed the bible is from God as it claims to be in 2 Timothy 3:16, then why are there so many inconsistencies. They also claim that the bible would not contain any Vulgarities or Obscenities. Then they also make accusations that the bible has many absurd moral codes.
When the various examples of inconsistencies are scrutinized and the verses in question are read and taken in context then one realizes that there is in fact no inconsistency, but that the two or more versions of the story, do not actually contradict, but allow for a more comprehensive version of the story to be seen.
Vulgarities and obscenities are pointed out because they show us sin, and what not to do. Many times someone in the bible did something that could be considered wrong; this was recorded so that future generations would not make the mistakes of the former generations.
How can the following “Do not make your daughter a prostitute� be considered an absurd moral guideline? If you can answer me that, and your argument is backed up perfectly and entirely then I will consider your position.

Old Testament Law was necessary because before Jesus Christ came because people had to make up for their sins by offering a sacrifice to God. God is perfect, and no one that inherits eternal life, will have sin. In the time of the OT you were made perfect by performing the proper sacrifice for your sin. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the law. We are now justified by accepting that in his death and subsequent resurrection he became the ultimate sacrifice that was necessary. This however does not mean that the OT law (10 commandments) is no longer to be followed. The 10 commandments are there to be a mirror; to show us where we go wrong. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23) and no one is righteous by their own doing (Rom 3:20.) We cannot get to heaven on our own. There is nothing we can do that can make up for our sins. (Eph 2:8-9. For by grace are ye saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves, not of works, lest any man should boast.)
Do you consider yourself a good person? If so, then by what standard are you making this judgment? Is it by your own judgment or someone else’s? Certainly not God’s standard for perfect. You have to be perfect to get into heaven. How can we be perfect then you may ask. The answer is simple. By accepting Jesus’ death on the cross, and accepting that he paid for our sins, then we are made perfect through him.
The way to get to heaven is by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior and realizing that no matter what you do, there is nothing that can be done to earn the right to get into heaven. Jesus is the way to heaven (John 14:6). First, you must admit that you are a sinner. Then repent of your sins. Then you must accept that Jesus died for everyone’s sins. Then you must accept him as your savior. A simple 2 minute prayer is all that is necessary.
If you don’t believe any of this, then I feel sorry for you. For when the day of judgment comes and we are all held responsible for our sins you will be cast into the lake of fire. If you don’t want to believe that God could do something like that, then realize this. We are doing it to ourselves. As said before Heaven cannot have sin in it, and if we are full of sin, then we go to Hell. We do it to ourselves. God has sent only and only son, so that whoever believes in him, should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16) God wants us to be with him in heaven. But when we don’t accept the gift of his son, then we are condemning ourselves to Hell. I hope that when judgment day comes you remember this. Just remember that when the Gospel was shared with you, that you rejected it. And that God didn’t send you to Hell, you sent yourself.

[-DM-]

It is every easy for someone to point a finger at the Bible and say that it is untrue.Yes, that is true. It is true because the Bible is easily demonstrated to be untrue in at least some of what it says.

They say that if indeed the bible is from God as it claims to be in 2 Timothy 3:16....2 Timothy 3:16 does not refer to the Bible; there was no Bible as we know it at the time that Paul penned 2 Timothy 3:16. At that time, the canon of the Bible had not yet been decided and, what's more, none of what is now known as the New Testament existed other than some of Paul's own writings. Further, there is a question as to whether the word should be "Scriptures" (capitalized) or "scriptures" (lower cased), as is evidenced by variations between different Bible versions.

...then why are there so many inconsistencies.That is a good question in the case of what is alleged to be the "Word" of an allegedly perfect and omnipotent "God."

They also claim that the bible would not contain any Vulgarities or Obscenities.I don't know anyone who has made such a claim.

Then they also make accusations that the bible has many absurd moral codes.Some biblical morality is absurd by typical standards of ethics, morality, and decency.

When the various examples of inconsistencies are scrutinized and the verses in question are read and taken in context then one realizes that there is in fact no inconsistency....Many sincere Christians, Christians who are also biblical scholars, disagree wholeheartedly.

...but that the two or more versions of the story, do not actually contradict, but allow for a more comprehensive version of the story to be seen.In my opinion, a perfect and omnipotent "God" who cared about having people believe his so-called Word, could have, should have, and would have seen to it that the authors did a better job of getting the details straight given that in at least some cases the biblical details are not just complimentary but mutually exclusive.

Vulgarities and obscenities are pointed out because they show us sin, and what not to do. I don't believe that you know the mind of "God" or that you--or any of us--have any way of verifying your claim. Still, the fact is that the Bible contains vulgarities and obscenities to the point that, were some particular verses to be quoted on a postcard, the postcard would have (in times past, at least) been destroyed by the postal service.

Many times someone in the bible did something that could be considered wrong; this was recorded so that future generations would not make the mistakes of the former generations.Again, that you know the mind of "God" and that you--or any of us--could verify your claim is dubious at best. Aside from that, however, the fact is that biblical characters too often did what was wrong in the eyes of "God" and too-often did so with His alleged approval. Worse, "God" himself too-often violates his own alleged moral standards.

How can the following “Do not make your daughter a prostitute� be considered an absurd moral guideline?What is absurd to me is that one would believe that it even needs to be mentioned.

If you can answer me that, and your argument is backed up perfectly and entirely then I will consider your position.Which means, of course, both that you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself and that there is no possibility that you will "consider [our] position."

Old Testament Law was necessary because before Jesus Christ came because people had to make up for their sins by offering a sacrifice to God.Never mind that there were people who died knowing nothing of either the Old Covenant or the New Covenant.

God is perfectThe God of the Bible is said to be perfect, but by my standards of perfection he is far from perfect. What's more, I think it obvious that "He" isn't perfect even by "His" own alleged standards.

The 10 commandments are there to be a mirror; to show us where we go wrong.Any discussion of the Ten Commandments needs to identify which version of the so-called Ten Commandments one has in mind. Further, no matter which version of the so-called Ten Commandments one has in mind, the fact is that they represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of ethics; far too much is left out.

[Preaching deleted.] If you don’t believe any of this, then I feel sorry for you.I feel sorry for you whether you do or don't believe any of what I am saying. Muslims likewise feel sorry for you for not believing the Quran, for when the day of judgment comes (according to Islam) you will be considered an infidel and will burn in hell. If you don't believe Muslims, then perhaps you can see why it is that we wouldn't believe either Christians or Muslims.

-DM-

[NdOfWrldAsWeNoIt]

If you know so much, then you should know there are not differences in the 10 commandments. The commandments haven't changed in thousands of years. Oh and 2 Timothy 3:16 where it says All scripture is God-breathed. Read the word scripture refering to the writings that were part of the accecpted canon of the time. The books added afterwards do not disagree with previous messages but simply reaffirm them.

Anyone who says they are a christian and then claims the bible isn't true, simply isn't a sincere. They are part of a group of hypocrites mentioned in the Gospels, those who cry Lord, Lord.


I never claim to know the mind of God, just to make some pretty common-sense claims. It's too bad that you are'nt considering the truth.

[-DM-]

If you know so much, then you should know there are not differences in the 10 commandments.There are several variations in the Bible itself and, in addition, some variation in interpretation of the so-called Ten Commandments between Catholics, Protestants and Jews. Thus, if one is going to make the kinds of statements that you make with regard to the so-called Ten Commandments, one needs to be careful to clarify exactly which version and which interpretation is under discussion.

Because Moses allegedly broke the tablets on which "God" allegedly wrote the first version of the Ten Commandments, "God" allegedly redid them. Unfortunately, "God," although allegedly perfect and omnipotent, seems to have forgotten what "He" said in the first instance inasmuch as the first and second editions are hardly identical. Worse, there are actually three sets of so-called Ten Commandments in the Bible:
1.) EX 20.2-17: the first set of ["Ten"] Commandments on two stone tablets.
[EX 32.19: Moses breaks the first set of tablets.]
[EX 34:1, God promises Moses a new set of tablets with the same words that were on the first set.]
2.) EX 34.12-28: the second set of ["Ten"] Commandments on a new set of two stone tablets.
3.) DT 5.6-21: [allegedly] a restating of the #1 set.

#1 and #3 are essentially the same, although there are minor variations between the two. #2, however, is quite different, and this is in spite of the fact that God allegedly said that he would write the same words on this set of two tablets as had been on the first set, the set which Moses broke. Only #2 is specifically labeled as the Ten Commandments and yet these are not the so-called Ten Commandments which we normally think of as the Ten Commandments. What it boils down to is these different sets of commandments come from different traditions, and in the case of #2, two different traditions have apparently been commingled after-the-fact by an editor.

Further, the so-called Ten Commandments are often suspiciously similar to the Law of King Hammurabi, which Hammurabi allegedly received from the Sun god Shamash prior to Moses and Yahweh's "Ten Commandments."

Here is some relevant information from various sources:

The New Oxford Annotated Bible:
EX 34.1-35: The renewal of the covenant, symbolized by the rewriting of the commandments. 1-4: The second tablets were to contain the words that were on the former tablets (24.12-14; compare Deut 10.1-5). Their reissue, however, provides an opportunity for the editor to introduce a cultic set of laws (vv. 12-16).)

Who Wrote the Bible, by Richard E. Friedman
p. 52-53:
"The idea that the Bible's early history was a combination of two originally separate works by two different people lasted only eighteen years. Practically before anyone had a chance to consider the implications of this idea for the Bible and religion, investigators discovered that the first five books of the Bible were not, in fact, even by two writers--they were by four. ... The sources J, E [which comprise two sources -DM-] were found to flow throughout the first of the four of the five Books of Moses. ... However, there was hardly a trace of them in the fifth book, Deuteronomy, except for a few lines in the last chapters. Deuteronomy is written in an entirely different style from those of the other four books. The differences are obvious even in translation. The vocabulary is different. ... There are blatant contradictions of detail between it and the others. Even part of the wording of the Ten Commandments is different. Deuteronomy appeared to be independent, a fourth source. It was called D.

p. 228-229:
This method of segmenting the stories and weaving the corresponding parts together worked so well that the redactor used it to assemble . . . [various stories]. In other cases, he chose to separate the two versions of doublet stories, thus depicting them as separate events. ... Thus some repetitions and contradictions were tolerable to him, and some were not. ... He was willing to have Moses repeat the Ten Commandments in his farewell address in Deuteronomy 5, even though they came out differently there from the way they appeared in Exodus 20. ... The first version [of the fourth commandment] is from P, and it quotes the P creation story for its reason for keeping the sabbath: because God rested on the seventh day. The second version is from D, and it gives a common D reason for keeping commandments: because God freed you from slavery. To the redactor and his readers, the two different wordings of the same commandment were compatible. (It is interesting to note that one of the Dead Sea scrolls collapses these two texts and simply lists both reasons for keeping the sabbath side by side.) In all of this, no one method governs the process. The redactor's texts were diverse and complicated, and he was wise enough and skillful enough to handle each case according to his judgement of what it needed.

The Bible in Balance, by Charles Smith:
As a moral code, the Commandments are defective. The first four have no moral value [whatsoever]. The Bible God commanded the breaking of all the commandments (except those involving himself). The first commandment reflects upon God as conceited; ... the third [makes him out to be jealous [and vengeful]. The fifth gives a selfish and false reason for honoring parents; and the tenth classes wives with asses and other chattels, and recognizes slavery. [Editor's note: the Hebrew word translated "servant" means "slave."] The Ten Commandments do not restrain wife beaters, slave beaters, religious persecutions, liars (outside of a court of law), or tyrants.(By the way, the authors of the Gospels seem to have recognized this last oversight in that they have Jesus saying in MK 10:19 that "defraud not" is one of the commandments even though there is no such commandment in the so-called Ten Commandments or elsewhere in the OT.)

It must also be kept in mind during any discussion of the Ten Commandments and of biblical moral precepts that there are not just ten commandments, but hundreds. In fact, there are more than 70 chapters which are more or less filled with the commandments which allegedly come from "God." Thus, if we were to accept that the Ten Commandments came from "God" and were worthy of our attention, there is good reason that these other commandments should receive similar attention.

---------

A previous post by an IIDB user:

The Real Ten Commandments
Author: Jeremy Pallant
Secular Web Regular
Member # 1637

posted May 18, 2001 05:58 PM

I've referenced a set of commandments found in Exodus 34, and claimed that these were the only such explicitly identified as being THE Ten Commandments. For those who might be curious, they are as follows:

The First Commandment
34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

The Second Commandment
34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god:
34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

34:16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

The Third Commandment
34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

The Fourth Commandment
34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

The Fifth Commandment
34:19 Every first birth of the womb is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

The Sixth Commandment
34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

The Seventh Commandment
34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the years end.
34:23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before Lord Yahweh, the god of Israel.
34:24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before Yahweh thy god thrice in the year.

The Eighth Commandment
34:25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.

The Ninth Commandment
34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of Yahweh thy god.

The Tenth Commandment
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk.

34:27 And Yahweh said unto Moses, write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

34:28 And he was there with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

---------

The commandments haven't changed in thousands of years.As you can see, what we call the Ten Commandments are different than what the Bible specifically labels as the Ten Commandments. Also, the interpretation of what we call the Ten Commandments has changed considerably over time; read some on the history of the biblical concept of adultery, for example, and you will see what I mean.

Oh and 2 Timothy 3:16 where it says All scripture is God-breathed. Read the word scripture refering [sic] to the writings that were part of the accecpted [sic] canon of the time. The books added afterwards do not disagree with previous messages but simply reaffirm them.There are many inconsistencies between the Old Testament (which more or less comprised the accepted canon of the time) and the New Testament, which now comprises part of the canon. You really need to do some study.

Anyone who says they are a christian and then claims the bible isn't true, simply isn't a sincere. They are part of a group of hypocrites mentioned in the Gospels, those who cry Lord, Lord.This represents a good example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I never claim to know the mind of God, just to make some pretty common-sense claims.You have very clearly stated what "God" intended. Whether your claims are "common-sense claims" is highly questionable.

It's too bad that you are'nt [sic] considering the truth.Your conception of truth needs refinement in light of biblical scholarship.

---------

Some suggested reading:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (http://www.religioustolerance.org./chr_10co.htm#int)

Ten Commandments Redux (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=92) by G J Gaudia

The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html) by Richard Carrier

The Ten Commandments are Moral Fossils (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=134) by Charles W. Webb, M.D.

The Ten Commandments (2000) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/william_edelen/10commandments.html) by William Edelen

THE "TEN COMMANDMENTS" AND THE "LAW" (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/is_it_gods_word/chapter_06.html) by Joseph Wheless

-DM-

P.S. I think I have said all that I want to say in regard to your comments. Feel free to have the last word. Note, however, that I'll likely copy this thread to one of the open discussion forums so that others may take part. You may continue the discussion there.