Ken Ham blasts God for not taking the Bible seriously

Ken HamIn a recent statement from his Creation Museum office, Ken Ham blasted God for “not taking the Bible seriously and undermining its authority.”

“Only someone with liberal leanings would write a Bible like this,” Ham exploded. “Placing next to each other in the Old Testament two blatantly contradictory histories of Israel [1 Samuel-2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles] is nothing less than an all-out attack on the integrity of God’s inerrant word.”

“Think about it. The transition of power from David to Solomon can’t be filled with political conspiracy and be smooth as silk, yet there we have it, clear as day.” [1 Kings 1-2; 1 Chronicles 23:1]

“We can harmonize some of this, but not all. And that’s a problem. Only a God willing to compromise on God’s word would write something like this.”

Ham’s concerns with how God wrote the Bible are not limited to the two histories of Israel.

“Once you start reading the Pentateuch, you get a clearer picture of God’s unbiblical agenda,” Ham alerted his followers.

“Just look at the laws. In Exodus God says to roast the Passover lamb and definitely not boil it. In Deuteronomy God says to boil it. In Chronicles God says to roast and boil the Passover meat. This is nothing less than a blatant liberal attack on the Bible.” [Exodus 12:8-9; Deuteronomy 16:7-8; 2 Chronicles 35:13]

“And what about keeping Israelite slaves? In Exodus and Deuteronomy God says Israelites can be slaves and they have the option to go free after 6 years. In Leviticus God says we’re not even allowed to have Israelite slaves, only foreign ones.” [Exodus 21:2-11; Deuteronomy 15:12-18; Leviticus 25:39-43]

“Sex with a menstruating woman? God says in Leviticus two different things about that: go ahead but you’ll be unclean for 7 days and absolutely not, and if you do you’ll be ‘cut off’ from your people, because that sort of thing is in the same category as having sex with your sister or aunt.” [Leviticus 15:24 and 20:18]

Ham laments that some are unwilling to take such a “bold stand,” but “there can be no compromise where the Bible is concerned, no matter how revered and popular the leader might be.”

In fact, Ham continues, “I’m just scratching the surface at how unbiblical God’s view of the Bible is,” and warns his followers to beware of the Almighty Creator as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing, spreading error among true Christians.”

Ham did, however, encourage his followers to “pray for God” as well as for him as he carries on God’s work.

[For the humor-deficient among you, no such statement as the above was made by Ham. I made it up. It's satire. I'm joking. 

My point here, through the use of absurd humor, is that the view of Scripture that serves as the basis for Ham's ever-ready denunciations of those who disagree with him on matters of science, etc. is a view that Scripture itself cannot bear.

For the record, I am not mocking God and I don't actually think God is "liberal" or a "wolf in sheep's clothing." I think God is good and wise, and his goodness and wisdom extend to a Bible that speaks in ancient, not modern, ways--the Bible we actually have. To brush that Bible aside is the true "attack." ]

"aha" moments: biblical scholars tell their stories (18): Rob Dalrymple
creating Adam, again and again
"aha" moments: biblical scholars tell their stories (11): Chris Keith
Here's something new: Genesis is in "crisis" and if you don't see that you're "syncretistic"
  • Jordan

    I was really hoping this was true.

  • LorenHaas

    Oh you have stepped over the line on this one. You have been warned to ignore the man behind the curtain. No Creation Museum Golden Key for you!

  • Erik Merksamer

    C’mon, does this really have to be satire? I choose to believe this account is literally true. If you go and say that this post is satire, then you might as well throw out everything Dr. Enns had ever written! SLIPPERY SLOPE!

    • peteenns

      Maybe the end was a “later addition,” like the end of Ecclesiastes, and should affect how we interpret the rest?

      • John

        I thought is was the whole framework of ecclesiastes. Maybe the first two paragraphs and last two paragraphs are both later additions.

    • Erik Merksamer

      Pete, you know I was joking, right?

      • peteenns

        Of course, but had I said I knew you were joking someone would have commented that I didn’t really need to say that and by doing so I ruined it.

        • Erik Merksamer

          Ha! :-)

  • Andrew

    Even though I wanted to skip to the bottom after the first two paragraphs, I read the whole thing to be surprised at the end.

  • Dan Roth

    typo alert – “differnet” for “different”

    • peteenns

      Oops. Got it. I hate being errant.

      • http://music.satellitereboot.com/ Matt S

        Nope, the Original Autographs say “differnet”, which means the English-speaking world has been spelling (and likely pronouncing) it incorrectly. Your correction is just a post-modern attempt at rewriting your post to say whatever you want it to say.

        • John

          Well played sir.

    • http://aldaily.com/ Justin L. Conder

      My reformed mind has made it clear that any perceived flaw in the post is the problem of our fallen minds, not Dr. Enns. Which is why I am now looking into apologetic works for the existence of a historical “Solmon.”

      • peteenns

        Phew. That was Solomon’s fraternal twin. Try reading the Bible once in a while, Justin.

  • Adele

    Ok, Ok, I’ll BUY your book! (already preordered, by the way) Was talking with my husband this morning about another recent post of yours, and about this one I read this morning about it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/08/13/who-you-gonna-believe-your-facts-or-my-worldview/ in reference to the ineffectiveness of mere information to combat bad stories or unsustainable worldviews – in which he quotes Frederick Douglas: “Scorching irony, not convincing argument,
    is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I
    would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting
    reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that
    is needed, but fire”. There’s a time and a place for fire. Good timing, I’d say. I appreciate your blog. I appreciate this latest aha series. And I appreciate having a deeper and richer and more beautiful Bible given back to me. THAT Bible is worth defending.

  • Charles Fields

    If your presupposition is that the possibility of a viable solution to these apparent discrepancies is zero, then, yes, scripture cannot speak to “matters of science, etc.” My presupposition is that the possibility of a viable solution to these apparent discrepancies is not zero.

    • peteenns

      It’s not a presupposition. It’s a conclusion arrived at over many years. I also think that your position is more a conclusion than a presupposition. The question is how one arrived at one conclusion rather than the other.

      • Charles Fields

        Scientific theories believed to be air-tight after, how did you put it, “a conclusion arrived at over many years.”
        Discovery of Vulcan
        Spontaneous Generation
        Expansion of the Earth
        Phlogiston Theory
        Martian Canals
        Luminiferous Aether
        Tabula Rasa
        Phrenology
        Einstein’s Static Universe
        Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion

        • http://aldaily.com/ Justin L. Conder

          All these models were reformed or replaced by better
          scientific models. Not by religious dogmatists who had settled conclusions regardless of evidence. And many of those outdated models were not universally well regarded by scientists or natural philosophers of their time – for the very reason that, though they sounded great in theory, they were speculative and lacked evidence. Scientific models change to deal with new information.

          But here’s the deal: Evolutionary theory will inevitably be expanded and one day may be replaced or merged into a more unified theory that we can’t even imagine right now. Similar to how Newtonian physics is still accurate, but can’t explain phenomenon that general relativity or quantum physics explains. That doesn’t mean evolutionary theory doesn’t have explanatory value *now* or that it is the best model for explaining the data *now.* Science would not be able to move forward if we found workable models which accurately predict phenomenon, but then summarily dismissed those models because they were incomplete and would one day look different. Of course, science will always be incomplete – that’s what makes it interesting. In the meantime, if evolution was magically overturned tomorrow, the conclusion would not be: 6-day young earth creationism must be true after all! Any model which could hope to supplant evolution would need to possess even *greater* physical evidence and descriptive/predictive value. If it’s just dogma that we will affirm no matter what new information arises, it’s useless to science.

          • Charles Fields

            Wow, completely missed my point. But nice dissertation. I was drawing attention to Pete’s comment that, after many years of research, he has concluded there are no viable solutions to the apparent textual discrepancies in his post. My argument is that conclusions arrived at over many years do not always end up correct.

          • http://aldaily.com/ Justin L. Conder

            Well, the first part of my reply addresses this. I don’t think all of those outmoded models were considered air tight even at the time they were in vogue in some circles. Viable solutions in textual criticism are obviously going to look a lot different than scientific models. But in my view, the type of “harmonization” of texts that minimizes the distinct voices of the biblical authors in order to prop up inerrantist notions does hinder a richer understanding of Scripture. It forces people to argue for conclusions which they never would have come to without prior theological commitments.

          • Charles Fields

            I applaud you on being the only human in history who has approached the Bible with no “prior theological commitments”

          • http://aldaily.com/ Justin L. Conder

            Didn’t say that. Everyone does. The problem is when those commitments override where a close study of textual criticism would naturally lead. If I come to the texts with the assumption they will always agree, that is okay up until when I must compromise the scholarship to “make” the whole scheme fit together. If there were an analogous problem of institutions of learning enforcing the belief in “errancy” of Scripture, I would consider that just as damaging to intellectual inquiry. We all have preconceptions, that isn’t the issue. It’s refusal to reevaluate those preconceptions that is the issue. Or to punish those that differ.

          • Charles Fields

            Are you punishing those who differ from you? My a priori assumptions are as follows: 1. The possibility for the existence of God is not zero, 2. The possibility that this God left a record of Himself is not zero, and 3. The possibility that apparent contradictions in that record (in the autographs) have a viable solution is not zero. What are your a priori assumptions?

          • smijer

            Follow-up for Charles – getting past your a priori assumptions, can you estimate a rough (very rough is fine) number to go with the non-zero probability on your point number 3? If it is higher than say, 50%, could you explain how you reached that conclusion? If it is lower, would you agree that there is not much evidence to support that mere possibility, compared with the evidence that there are contradictions in the text that need resolution if Biblicism is to be found true?

          • Charles Fields

            First I need to know your a priori assumptions regarding God and Scripture.

          • smijer

            I’ll give you two sets:
            1) There is not God, and Scripture is balderdash
            2) The God of Israel is the God of the universe, and Scripture carries his special inspiration.
            If your answers about your conclusions differ for one set than the other, I’d be interested to hear both, and how my perspective creates that difference in your viewpoint.

          • Charles Fields

            No, I’m serious, what are your personal presuppositions regarding God and Scripture? Everyone has presuppositions…very few realize it…even fewer can articulate them. Can you?

          • Charles Fields

            And even fewer live as thought they are true

          • smijer

            Yes, I feel I am reasonably able to do so. If you will engage with me on the subject at hand, I will be glad to then change the subject to my presuppositions.

          • Charles Fields

            I cannot offer an informed reply without first knowing your presuppositions regarding God and Scripture.

          • smijer

            Why is that? How does my viewpoint inform your estimate of the probability that there is a resolution to those contradictions? We’ve never even met – I do not feel comfortable with the idea that I could have so much power over you.

          • Charles Fields

            If your a priori assumptions regarding God and Scripture are that the possibility of either is absolutely zero, then nothing I say in defense of either will make a difference. If your a priori assumptions regarding God and Scripture are that the possibility of either is not zero, then we agree, and there is nothing else to debate.

          • smijer

            Perhaps there is nothing to debate. Would you agree that, “non-zero probability” on point 3 aside, the Bible we have seems to have significant contradictions, which undermines doctrines widely described as “Biblicist”? If you agree with that, then I would say you, Justin, P.E., and I are in broad agreement about the central issue of both blog post and our little corner of the comment thread. However, if you disagree with that, then there is room for debate on it, even if I agree with you that the probability of God and of God having arranged a (written) record of himself are non-zero.

            Furthermore, the reason I responded to you was to challenge you to work through the validity of your own position, not to seek help with mine. So, even if I disagreed with you about points one and two, that doesn’t negate my effort to help you with point three.

          • Charles Fields

            I agree that the Bible we have seems to have significant contradictions, which is why I wrote my MDiv thesis on the subject of NT Textual Criticism. I studied under Bruce Metzger at Princeton (yes, shameless name-dropping), and pretty much agree with his conclusions. However, I will probably never come to a point in my life where, as John R. Rice opined, I “sit in judgment on the Bible and let poor, sinning, frail, ignorant, mortal men pass judgment on the Word of God.”

          • smijer

            Well, I will congratulate you on your bona-fides. I hope you don’t mind that I did some googling to check them. I will share with you that I was born at Decatur General – so perhaps we have a bit of geographical coincidence between us.

            Since it seems a sticking point to you, I will go ahead and clarify that I do agree with the “non-zero” probability of all three of your priors. That is a pretty low bar. I could say the same in a discussion of Islam and the Koran.

            So, I didn’t study under Metzger. In fact, I am only passingly familiar with his views. I think it is fair to say that he was unwilling to commit to inerrancy, but otherwise pretty well aligned with evangelical Biblicism. Was he also a creationist?

            In your comment that started this thread, you said that if the possibility of resolving all of the contradictions in the Bible was “zero”, then the Bible *could not speak to matters of science*.

            First, it is a low view of scripture indeed that holds that the Bible *cannot* speak to matters of science. It is quite another to say that it is wrong to read the Bible in specific instances *as* speaking to matters of science, further reading it as in conflict with science, and to insist that because of this reading, science must be wrong. While I do not follow the logic of “zero probability of resolution implies the Bible cannot speak to matters of science”, I’m not sure if that is where our difference is in the first place. If you really think that 100% certainty of some contradictions makes it impossible for the Bible to speak to matters of science, I am really interested in hearing your logic. After all, there is no inerrant scientist anywhere, and *they* are all able to speak to matters of science.

            Or is it that you think that “(only) zero probability of resolution implies that scripture cannot bear the reading Ken Ham insists on, but non-zero probability implies that scripture *can* bear the burden Ham places on it?” … If so, could you explain the logic of that?

            Or do you *agree* with P.E. that scripture cannot bear a Biblicist/inerrantist demand that Genesis be a perfectly true scientific account? Have I misunderstood you somewhere along the way? If so, I apologize for taking so much of your time.

          • Charles Fields

            My wife wants me to sit down and eat dinner with her….it may be helpful to continue this 25-year relationship by accommodating her…may I please reply tomorrow?

          • smijer

            I’ll get some rest myself and check back tomorrow. Enjoy your dinner!

          • http://aldaily.com/ Justin L. Conder

            I think you’ve presented some good points and questions, smijer. Here would be my position with regard to how the Bible speaks on science and how modern readers should interact with that. It is essentially John Walton’s position. The writers wrote from an ancient mindset and God *probably* did not give them “privileged” access to modern science and technology. Anyway, what era of history would God use to reveal science (1687 from Britain? 1859 from Britain? 2014 from America? 23000 from Planet Arrakis?) To me, the low view of Scripture would be to treat the Bible like many New Agers treat Nostradamus. Pulling and stretching and making ancient words mean something different than the author probably intended. So for instance, a passage like Isaiah 40:22 says that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. . .” Does this suggest the expansion of the universe as we have come to understand it in 21st Century science? Was God dropping hints of his knowledge through ancient words? Or are we reading into such a passage with the knowledge we bring to it, and missing what is really being said? I gravitate to the latter position, as it seems to be more respectful of the text.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci-6ekUmQFE

          • Charles Fields

            you can read my reply to Mr. Conder above. It should suffice.

          • peteenns

            The contradictions in the Bible (like the ones I mention in my satirical post) are not matters of textual-criticism but of content resulting from various historical settings and traditions behind the texts. And that certainly isn’t “sitting in judgment” over the Bible to look at how the Bible actually presents itself and think, “Why does it look this way?” Christians have been doing that for a very long time, and Jews before that. A “presupposition” that precludes that stance is not reasonable or more faithful to God.

          • http://aldaily.com/ Justin L. Conder

            My theological assumptions are as follows. I operate under the assumption that God exists. I operate under the assumption of Christ’s work, since I’ve experienced it and seen it in the lives of others. I operate under the assumption that Scripture is inspired by God. However, where I would (probably) differ with you is that, while it is always *possible* that all the apparent contradictions in Scripture can be explained away, my personal studies (and this is personal research, since textual criticism is not my scholarly field) have led me to doubt many of the explanations produced by those scholars who take an inerrantist position as given. Some of them work. But alot of them do not. Many of these solutions are apologetic in nature and seem strained and ad-hoc. And I’ve come to the conclusion (not final, always subject to revision) that Scripture doesn’t need to maintain our modern, post-Enlightenment concepts of consistency and scientific veracity in order to be relevant and useful for the spiritual life. Even central. Those are some theological presuppositions.

            But the thing people can’t get past, is that it was my openness to experience and knowledge that led me to those positions in the first place – *including my positions on God and Christ.* Now, many years ago, I did not have these convictions at all. The same spirit of inquiry that led me back to a renewed faith is the same spirit which allowed me to see the Bible in a new way. So I can’t switch that spirit of inquiry off now as though I’ve “arrived” at absolute truth. One of my assumptions is maintaining epistemic humility, and not to privilege my views on inspiration to the extent that I *refuse to consider* alternative models. This is an acknowledgement that I’ve been wrong in the past and could be wrong again.

            Theological convictions are not going to prevent me from saying “that seems like a contradiction, and on the whole, looking at all the evidence, it probably is.” And, unless there is a reasonable, untortured solution, I’m not going to keep affirming that there are no contradictions, or that there are just “apparent” contradictions. God’s way of communication through Scripture is not at all the way we would communicate in the 21st Century. The authors were ancient humans, and the Bible maintains the stamp of its lowly origin. That God works through that human frailty to communicate with us seems consistent with the overall picture we get of God’s character. We’d prefer it all be codified and systematized, everything in its proper place, because that’s how we think. But in my view, that’s just not how the Bible is.

          • Charles Fields

            Jn 6.60, “This is a difficult saying, who can understand it?” Hey, just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean it’s not original. The apparent harshness and obscurity of some of our Lord’s sayings rid him of followers who were unwilling to be taught or were halfhearted in their search. They were not willing to look beyond the surface of the issues. My focus in seminary was NT Textual Criticism. My presupposition is that God left a record of Himself, and that record is the 66 books of the Bible. And not even one passage will pass away until all have been fulfilled (Mt 5:18). My passion (and I know I will never get there in this lifetime) is to work my way back to the autographs. I honestly believe it pleases God to think enough of His Word to work through the difficult issues, and it separates those who are serious about Him, and those who are half-hearted. If I find inconsistencies with variant readings (Pericope Adulterae, longer ending of Mark, etc.) then I work through it and make an informed decision. There is nothing wrong or unspiritual, of course, about doubting—so long as one continues to search for a resolution. But there are some who, as John W. Haley put it so well, “cherish a cavilling spirit, who are bent upon misapprehending the truth, and urging captious and frivolous objections [and who] find in the inspired volume difficulties and disagreements which would seem to have been designed as stumbling-stones for those which ‘stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed’ [1 Pet 2:8]. Upon the wilful votaries of error God sends ‘strong delusion, that they should believe a lie’ [2 Thess 2:11], that they might work out their own condemnation and ruin. (An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Andover, Mass., 1874, p. 40) (let the record reflect that I am not referring to anyone in particular, and that I am the chiefest of sinners)

          • http://aldaily.com/ Justin L. Conder

            There are many scholars who take the Bible quite seriously, who believe not just in its inspiration but its historical centrality to Western Civilization, and who continue to probe its mysteries. But they acknowledge its human side – including discrepancies, many of which appear to be real. But I’m confused by the John Haley quote. This, to me, is the issue I had with many inerrantists in and out of academia. There is an undercurrent of accusation that goes like this: “if you come to different conclusions, or don’t suspend judgment forever in lieu of a miraculous harmonizing solution, that means you are just wanting to reject the Bible and live in sin.” I think that doesn’t actually characterize most non-inerrantist Christian scholars, or even most biblical scholars in general. Honest people honestly disagree on this. Sure, there are plenty of angry anti-theistic websites out there which mock the Bible and denigrate it, and in so doing distort it. But what we are talking about is different models of inspiration. And it is mostly an in-house debate among theists – in this case, Christian theists.

            Let’s take an example and see how we each handle it, briefly. I come across a problem. You alluded to Mark 16:9-20. Now after a lot of study, I’ve decided that this passage *probably* wasn’t a part of the original gospel of Mark. I’m pretty confident that this is the case. Now I don’t know if you would accept that. But if you were convinced of that, what would you do at that point? Here’s what I do: I ask questions like, how was this used by Christians over the centuries? What are the theological reasons for the addition of the passage? Would the overall gospel of Mark suffer without it, or is it integral to its message? So I don’t stop asking questions or half-heartedly look for reasons to doubt. I take the scholarship as far as I can go, and in many cases I’m left with a probability of one model being more likely than the others. Then I move on to work on the next issue – and that is how the passage operates in the church, and how I might use it in my own spiritual life.

            I will continue to search for resolutions to problems, but I’m not going to pretend that inconsistencies don’t exist or that they would A) be solved if only we had the original autographs or B) are really illusory problems and a product of our sinful, unregenerate hearts which wish to reject biblical authority. All of us are flawed, but we have to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we are being earnest in our pursuit of knowledge.

          • Charles Fields

            This will probably clear up any misunderstanding you have about me: I believe God directly inspired the Bible infallibly and inerrantly and made no mistakes. Men copied it and made mistakes. Men translated it and made mistakes. Men revised it and made mistakes. Men printed it and made mistakes. Men edited it and made mistakes. And yet, we have the Word of God in our hands today. Those who distort these truths to defend any Bible are its worst enemies. There is the Biblical (technical) definition of inspiration, which applies to the original manuscripts. Then there is the theological (generic) definition which refers to the providential preservation of the scriptures. The Ethiopian eunuch riding in his chariot on his way home from Jerusalem was reading a portion of Scripture (graphe, Acts 8.32-33). These were not autographs; they were copies. These copies contained scribal errors. Yet the Bible calls them graphe, and every graphe is inspired (2 Tim 3.16). Ergo, copies of the autographs are inspired (generic definition), which means no translation needs to be flawless to be considered the inspired Word of God. This was clearly Paul’s view. I enjoyed collating manuscripts and studying lower criticism in seminary because I knew it would shore up my faith in His word. And by the way, I am convinced not one Christian doctrine is based on a variant reading.

          • MattB

            Our faith is based in Christ’s resurrection which verifies his claims to divinity. If that’s the case, then some contradictions here and there in the texts don’t really matter because they aren’t what our faith is founded upon.

          • smijer

            To follow up on what Justin just said… Agreeing with both of you that prior theological commitments invariably influence your understanding of the Bible, it is worth remembering that when you make a decision about how to harmonize (or choice not to do so), you have incorporated that choice (along with whatever precommitments may have influenced the decision) into your final understanding. At that point, what you are understanding is not the Bible, but rather the-Bible-plus-your-precommitments. Needless to say, that second work carries less authority than the Bible itself might.

            I also dispute the appeal to future evidence that seems implicit in the claim that (to paraphrase) we cannot know if there might be some resolution to the contradictions we find. Now, not only do we have prior commitments, but we are *privileging* those commitments. If the *available* evidence says contradiction, then that supports “errancy” over “inerrancy”. If we choose to ignore the *available* evidence from the Bible in favor of some sort of *possible, future* evidence, then we are, in essence, choosing our own presuppositions **over the evidence of the Bible**. Perhaps less so, if we have a specific resolution in mind… however, if that specific resolution is week and speculative – more so than a “plainer” reading – then we are still engaged in the same exercise.

          • peteenns

            Does that include Xty? Do you leave open a 1% chance that it is false?

          • Charles Fields

            If I didn’t, it wouldn’t be faith.

  • Stephen W

    Dude, seriously. Lose the last 3 paragraphs.

    • peteenns

      My lawyers encouraged me to include them.

      • Stephen W

        Yeah, but it’s not funny if you have to explain it!

        • Jason S

          It’s not funny. That’s why he has to explain it. It’s absurd and foolish.

          • John

            As Paul wrote in Hebrews: Μην κρίνεις εξ ιδίων τα αλλότρια

        • peteenns

          But the explanation is funny :-) Actually, you’d be surprised. I’m trying to keep my inbox from filling up with, “Your ignorance astounds me, Dr. Enns, that you would think Ken Ham actually thinks God is liberal” and the like.

          • Stephen W

            That would be hilarious. You could post the best ones…

          • peteenns

            see above… I posted on example

  • http://www.oddinthetruth.com/ OddintheTruth

    I read the article you linked to on Ham’s rant against Gungor. Wow…what a mess. Your satire makes that point.

    And yet not only do I have problems with Ham’s take, but Gungor’s too. His seems to be an equally unhelpful “anti-fundamentalist” reactionary take of Genesis 1-11.

    A “literal” view of Scripture is far more complicated and nuanced (as you know) than Ham or Gungor want to admit. Both come across as making caricatures.

    For example, if John Walton, Seth Postell or John Sailhamer are correct in their views of Genesis 1-11, then the authorial intent – i.e., the literal meaning – can be much different than either Gungor or Ham claim. And it seems to me that all three have merit. A little humility would be nice.

    Gungor’s and Ham’s rants ultimately say more about each of them than they do about the meaning of Genesis 1-11.

    • http://aldaily.com/ Justin L. Conder

      I don’t take Gungor’s view either, and agree with you that there are better approaches than the reactionary angle he seems to be taking right now. However, I think there is a significant difference between the two individuals. Gungor has shown the capacity to grow and change as new facts are brought to his attention. He’s trying to figure out how to fit facts he’s been convinced of with his faith life. But this is not the case with Ham. Ham will never be moved from his position by new information, and in fact has proudly stated as much. Moreover, Ham’s tactic is to warn/scold Gungor for slipping away from dogma rather than dealing with the substance of Gungor’s inability to accept belief models which defy the evidence we actually have.

      • peteenns

        It’s also a story of coming back to faith, which the World Mag. article looked over.

      • pease

        It sounds like you’re encouraging a nuanced view of peoples’ positions that don’t fit in to easy “either/or” motifs. But if we do that HOW WILL WE KNOW WHO IS WINNING?

      • Mochajava76

        What is ironical (to quote Robin Williams’ character in “Good Will Hunting”) is that when Ham referred to the Gungors, he stated “Neither is a Bible scholar nor scientist. And yet, they are writing as though they know more than people who have spent their lives studying the inerrancy of Scripture and who—in many cases—have come to different conclusions”.
        Yet last I checked, Ken Ham has a degree in Education — not sure if it is an Ed.D, and two honorary degrees. So why is he self-qualified?

  • http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/ James Goetz

    Excellent :-)

  • Dan

    I think I need to reread I&I.

    • peteenns

      Or at least buy it.

      • Dan

        I already own it.

        • Rob B

          I just photocopied mine from the library using Pete’s tab on the copier.

          • peteenns

            God will punish you.

          • Andrew Dowling

            Come on Rob Bell . . I know California’s expensive, but the royalties from “Love Wins” should more than cover a copy of Pete’s book.

        • peteenns

          But it again in case you want to read it twice.

          • Kelly Reimer

            Sounds like you’re in it just for the money. He said he owned the book already.

          • Aristarchus

            I feel like you need to sign up for a comedy workshop or something.

  • Onesimus Nesard

    I went to the trouble of looking up some of those contradictions listed. As for the first one, to roast or to boil, it turns out in my Bible that nowhere in the three passages listed is the lamb to be boiled (just the other offerings are boiled in 2 Chron, not the lamb). Really, Peter, I’m kind of annoyed that you’re first example doesn’t even own up. As for the others, considering these are proto-legal texts, I have to say as a lawyer that I’ve seen legislation that is far more contradictory than this, and it could very well be that the discrepeancies are intentional and refer to two mutually non-exclusive situations: accidental and intentional, in the menstrual sex instance, voluntary or involuntary slavery in the other instance).
    To be perfectly honest, I think the best approach is to withhold judgement on whether or not there is a contraction. You, on the other hand, seem to be bent on convincing people that the Old Testament is riddled with contradictions, which doesn’t seem to be the case as far as I’m concerned.

    • peteenns

      Did you read the Hebrew? If you have access, read the notes in the “Jewish Study Bible.” It’d all laid out there. Very helpful resource. Also, I don’t think the OT is “riddled” with contradictions, nor am I “bent” on convincing people. There are a significant number of contradictions that readers notice all on their own.

      • http://thoughtinflux.blogspot.co.nz/ Micah Did-Dell

        So how did Law-observant Jews reconcile these contradictions in their day-to-day practice of the Law?

        • pease

          this is a phenomenal question on a topic I’d love to learn more about.

        • peteenns

          In the case of the Passover Law, the issue is “resolved” in the much later book of Chronicles (4th c. BC), where the two laws are merged. In later Judaism, debates over how to handle laws were preserved without the need to arrive at one and only one answer. In Jesus’ day, debating these sorts of things was normal, part of the Jewish experience. Still later, in the Talmud, contradictory conclusions sit comfortably side-by-sdie as testimonies to ongoing Jewish engagement of Scripture.The debate unified their faith, and communion with God was not dependent on getting the laws right once and for all. And of course, many of the laws presume a centralized temple and presence in the land, which by AD 70 was no longer the case, which for diaspora Judaism amped up the issue of “what are these laws saying and what does it mean for us to keep them?” I have often mused, as have others, whether Christians could benefit from such a flexible approach to handling the Bible, where not all things hang in the balance of getting the Bible absolutely right, but learned disagreement is valued.

          • Mark K

            Wow. Very refreshing, Pete.

          • MiketheMoore

            Boiling first to tenderize, then roasting it for a short time to get a nice browned crust would be quite tasty.

    • pease

      Your way of justifying this is problematic though. It’s not that some of those moments COULDN’T be excused that way, just that you have to go outside the text to do it. You have to hypothesize with “well maybe” or “if you know that culture.” There’s nothing in the Bible that synthesizes these viewpoints.

      So you are now using the same logic as people who argue for a more metaphorical creation account, or a host of other issues. I lean toward being comfortable with that way of thinking – acknowledging that there’s a mystery to a lot of it and that both literal and metaphorical interpretations of some events could both be valid and within the realm of orthodoxy.

      This piece is specifically tackling a way of thinking contrary to that approach, which says that only a literal, within-the-text viewpoint is correct. The author is pointing out the inherent flaw in that. I get the sense you disagree, and yet in disagreeing you’re using the very methodology he’s ultimately encouraging.

      • Onesimus Nesrad

        I admit that I’m using the methodology criticized by this satirical article, but only to complain that the examples could have been chosen more carefully if the author wishes to be more convincing. As it stands, I have no reason to prefer a literal to a metaphorical interpretation, or vice versa. I haven’t seen any truly irreconcilable contradictions (some are a long shot, but they could be the true meaning of the Bible) that warrant abandoning the literal view completely, and the metaphorical view has its problems, especially in a Protestant contexte where the Bible ends up meaning whatever you want it to mean, which I doubt is God’s intention.

    • LorenHaas

      Poe!

      • GibbyD

        Edgar Allen ?

    • Andrew Dowling
  • ajl

    well, the eventual explosion on Ken Ham’s website denouncing you should drive quite a bit of traffic to this site :-)

    If I were you I would keep a close watch on your page views – it will be interesting to see the “lag time” between when Ken Ham melts down over your post and when people start checking out your blog.

  • Robert Holmstedt

    Ha, ha, ha! Nice, Peter.

  • Chad

    How is this “Hosting the conversation on Faith”? This article rather intimidates and demeans those with a differing view. Peter Enns you need to be reminded of some first principles.

    • Andrew Dowling

      “demeans those with a differing view”

      But it’s (meaning Ken Ham style creationism) not a legitimate viewpoint to have. You might as well cry about the mistreatment of people who think smoking is good for them or believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

  • Chuck

    Would have been much more effective had you not mentioned that it was satire at the end. :(

    • peteenns

      see above…

    • hotfuzz

      Then it would have been just plain lying.

      Oh – but that’s what it is anyway. Grow up Mr Enns.

  • Chip

    It’s just a shame that you felt the need for all the caveats. When you have to explain a joke …. Oh, nevermind.

    • peteenns

      For those of you wondering why I explained that the post is satire, here is a comment left for me elsewhere EVEN WITH the explanation at the end!!!:

      “Frankly I am deeply disturbed and saddened by the people making the claim that this article is satire. Tell me, friends, how can you ever hope to objectively determine whether an article is satire or not? It’s all down to just your opinion, isn’t it? And why, if we were to determine, in our human “wisdom,” that this article is satire, then what, pray tell, would prevent us from reading the rest of Pete Enns’ articles as satire, as well?”

      Welcome to my world, folks.

      • Annie Stepka

        That’s…that’s satire, right?

      • Murciano

        It took me a minute to realize how awesome this comment was.

      • Mike Goetz

        What a great example of Poe’s Law

  • David

    I take the point that is being made in the article, and it is a useful point.. I get it. I accept it. We have to take the bible as it is, with all of its “humanness” and Incarnation-esque”..Just to make the further point though that we must ensure that we cite real contradictions. For example Due 16:7 says, concerning the Passover, (NIV): “Roast it and eat it at the place the LORD your God will choose.” Nothing about boiling it.

    • peteenns

      The NIV is covering up the contradiction. You need to look at the Hebrew (which I thought of making clear in the post but felt it might ruin the flow). The root in question is “bshl”. The Jewish Study Bible is a good place to see all this laid out succinctly. The Passover Law is one of several places where Dt. and Exod/Lev do not see eye to eye legally. Fishbane’s Biblical Inetpretation in Ancient Israel has a rather lengthy chapter cataloging the phenomenon.

      • John

        But the KJV says…

        • Guest
          • cajaquarius

            I don’t find Chick’s message all that offensive – it is almost laughably idiotic. It is mainly his butchery of the comic medium. That is way too many words per panel. Sounds like Chick could use some work in the Sloth department because those comics are lazy.

          • Roger Peritone

            I guess Jack doesn’t know about all of King Jame’s faults then.

          • GibbyD

            You don’t know the whole story behind the lies that were passed on about him .

          • Roger Peritone

            Educate me then.

          • GibbyD

            no time but the following is a good place to start. http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/was_king_james_a_homosexual.html

          • Roger Peritone

            From the article, these are the character flaws I had heard of the man:

            Quote:
            “While we do not believe that
            King James was a homosexual, we do not defend his character very far. He
            was a persecutor of Baptists and other separatists who refused to
            submit to the state church. In fact, the last two men burned alive in
            England for their faith were burned during the reign of James, and many
            others died in cruel prison cells for no crime other than following the
            Bible according to the dictates of their own conscience. During King
            James’ reign, many — including Baptists, Puritans, Protestant
            separatists such as the Pilgrims, and Quakers — fled to America and
            elsewhere to seek religious liberty.

            The
            bottom line is that the character of King James I has no relevance to
            the King James Bible itself. Though he set the project in motion and
            there is evidence that he maintained an interest in keeping it moving
            along, he had no role in the translation. He did not even finance the
            project. ”

            I was pointing out that ol’ Jack Chick seemed to see none of James’ flaws himself, as if he thought James was divinely inspired or something.

            I do agree that James’ character is irrelevant to the process itself.

            Not that it salvages the bible in any way…

          • GibbyD

            The Bible does not need “salvaging” . The Bible contains the Gospel which can salvage you . God used sinful imperfect man and He still does that today. —”Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”( I Corinthians 1:20-31)KJB

            “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:….” ( 2 Timothy 3:16)KJB

            “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” ( 2 Peter 1:19-21)KJB

          • Roger Peritone

            And quoting a book to me that I don’t believe in and accept already is supposed to have what kind of an effect on me, really?

          • GibbyD

            Then please consider the testimony of one man that made it his mission to disprove the claims of Christ and The Bible , but was convinced otherwise . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33buor5NfcU

          • Andrew Dowling

            “Made it his mission”? . . .he was writing a paper in college. The guy was barely an adult when he converted.

          • GibbyD

            “made it his mission ” were my words . Since Josh McDowell has not changed his belief in Christ and The Gospel in over 50 years of study from the time of his first discovery and faith in Christ , I would conclude that he had reasons to believe that would erase all doubt .

          • John

            THERE IS NO SPOON!!!!

      • Daniel Fisher

        Pete, how flexible is the meaning of bshl in extra-biblical usage? I did a quick word search, and while most other uses certainly seem by context to mean boil, 2Sam13:8 uses the word to describe baking cakes – even NRSV (not exactly a conservative translation) translates bshl as “baked” here. I’d be curious of additional data – are you aware of any extra-biblical usage that sheds any further light on the word usage?

        • peteenns

          The pressing irritant is that in Exodus we read specifically NOT to bshl whereas Deut, with apparently no knowledge of the earlier tradition, says to bshl. It’s possible (hypothetical) that bshl came to have a different meaning when Deut was written, but the issue evidently was enough for the Chronicler to do his midrash. If you have access, look at Fishbane and the JSB.

          • Daniel Fisher

            I’ll definitely look those up as soon as I have opportunity – but in the meanwhile I looked up 2Chron35; and there (if my rusty Hebrew informs me right) it uses bshl BOTH to mean roast and boil – NRSV has “They roasted [waw + ybshlu] the passover lamb with fire according to the ordinance; and they boiled [bshlu] the holy offerings in pots…” Would I be correct in assuming that context alone (not the form of the verb which I’m too rusty to confidently identify?) is what justified NRSV in these translation choices?

            (P.S., just looked up the Fishbane book on Amazon… only $99.73 to rent it; $59.19 on Kindle, or buy a used copy for $66.21. I’ll have to see what local library resources can get me… JSB for $28 is a reasonable addition to my shelf, though.)

          • Matt

            Pete and Daniel, you guys seem to know quite a bit about your Hebrew. Can bshl be the generic “cooking” that you interpret from context the way something was “bshld”? I noticed the Exodus passage seems to use two different words from the same root bshl (ubshl, mbshl). Do not cook (ubshl) by boiling (mbshl). (I’m getting my text analysis at http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/12-9.htm) So a modern day equivalent would be to say “I’m firing up the grill to cook burgers”. From the context it’s safe to say I’m not going to boil them. From the context the translators in our modern English rightly translate “roast” in Deut. Is that a fair assessment?

          • Daniel Fisher

            I would never claim to “know my Hebrew”, certainly not at the level that Pete does as an OT prof… I had the required 3 classes in seminary 20 years ago, and have tried to stay up with it, but can still only (barely) work my way through a text with lots of helps.

            The most basic lexicon definiton of the term is “boil”. A word search on bshl seems mean boil (by context) in the vast majority of cases… only exceptions to my amateur view seem to be “baking”? in 2Samuel13 and “roasting”? in the first use of 2 Chron35.

            I’m intrigued also by the use in exodus: “ubashel mibushal bamayim” (roughly?), which is clearly boiling as it even specifies “in water” (bamayim). But why the double/repeated word? It may be that these other words clarify the meaning via context, just as in 2Chron35 bshl is understood as meaning “roast” due simply by context? (waw+yibashlu hapesach ba-esh – “roast the Passover lamb in fire).

            But these are merely educated (or perhaps more accurately uneducated?) guesses. I suspect like you that there may be some flexibility in the word, with precise definition determined by context, and that the author of Deut is simply using that somewhat more generic term to mean “roast” in the same manner as the author of Chronicles seems to… even NRSV t translates deut 16 with a generic “cook”, and I don’t think they were especially motivated to hide apparent contradictions. But I don’t claim to have enough knowledge of extrabiblical hebrew to compare this usage to to know if there’s anything to this.

          • Matt

            Thanks Daniel! I’m just an amateur who finds this stuff fascinating. It seems the vast majority of the time when there’s a “contradiction” it goes back to either taking things out of context or the limitations of translation, which will always happen because language is a reflection of culture. Mistranslations can still wreak havoc in today’s world (classic case being the Pepsi ad campaign in China debacle)

          • peteenns

            I certainly see the point you are trying to make, Matt, and I appreciate it. But let’s take a step back and look at a couple of things—and I realize this may be more than you want or need to hear :-)

            First, that Deut in general has a different legal tradition than Exod/Lev is well known and not seriously contested (even if where exactly those traditions came from are debated). Re: this Passover law, forget bshl for a moment and look at where the meal is to be celebrated. In Exodus it is a family meal celebrated at home. In Deut it is in the central sanctuary. This is not nit-picky but part of the Deuteronomists distinct legal tradition of drawing Israel’s laws into a centralized system.

            Back to Exodus. There we read that the Passover lamb is to be tsli-‘esh, literaly “roasted of fire.” And one is most definitely NOT to eat it raw or bashel mbushshal bimmayim. This COULD in the abstract be translated “do not eat of it…or cook [it] boiled in water” but the point here is still the fact that it is to be boiled. (Personally, translating it “boiled in water” is the least problematic in the context). And keep in mind the big picture: definitely “roasted of fire” ONLY; absolutely DO NOT boil (bshl) it in water.

            Along comes Deut, which already has it’s own take on many of Israel’s laws, and we read not “roast it in fire at home…do NOT bshl”” as does Exodus does, but simply—without any explanation or hint that this might be a problem with respect to what we just saw in Exodus—“bishshal” the Passover lamb and eat it in the central sanctuary.

            Now COULD Deut mean simply bshl in the generic sense of “cook”? Perhaps. Anything is possible, but this is not simply a matter of what words mean in lexicons, but what they mean in context, and in this case the context is the larger theology and perspective of Deut. It is a stretch (not that you’re saying this ) that SINCE bshl CAN mean generically “cook” that this is what it means here in Deut.

            More importantly, it is very clear to biblical scholars that when the larger midrashic “project” of Chronicles is kept in mind, his phrasing is designed to hold these two laws together. Ignore the English if possible. He writes “bshl the pesach (Passover lamb) in ‘esh”—going out of his way to connect bshl explicitly with roasting, which Exodus definitely does not do, but with a slight nudge, Deut. can do. In other words, he is supplying the explicit connection between bshl and fire that Deut doesn’t (and had he done so there would be no need for the Chronicler’s midrash).

            Also, I can’t recall if I read this in Fishbane or perhaps Kugel, but CHR also goes out of his way to say “bshl it in fire according to the command,” as if to drive home the unity of the two Passover commands achieved through the midrash. He then continues to use the word bshl again, but this time to talk about what happens in “pots”, namely boiling. This is extremely clever and inventive, a second way of drawing together Exod and Deut: bshl is used in both the sense of roasting and boiling, a merger of the two earlier traditions.

            Here I would again suggest—if available—reading Fishbane and JPS study notes to Deut 16 and 2 Chron 35, perhaps also critical commentaries on Chron (Japhet, Williamson). But let me stress again, the issue here is not what words or even phrases CAN mean in isolation. Such a strategy has been part of the conservative/fundamentalist response to modern biblical criticism since the beginning. Taken is isolation, words and phrases can mean many things, especially for those motivated to find an alternate reading (again, not that you’re doing that). The true measure of an interpretation of a word or verse is how well it helps us understand larger issues of biblical compositions.

            Pete, signing out….

          • Matt

            Trust me, I’m not trying to be one of “those” people on an internet thread, I find this helpful in approaching exegetical practice.

            On your first point, the context of of Ex 12 is the first Passover, they were still slaves in Egypt, there was no central sanctuary so it would naturally be held in the context of individual families. You may be able to make the connection with v 21: “Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.” and v 23 “Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants”. But it seems an assumption that the command can only mean the context of individual families for all Passovers to come. It seems quite plausible that once outside Egypt they would set up the centralized system. I’m missing the disconnect you see between Exodus and Deut in that regard.

            In your response you wrote “Back to Exodus. There we read that the Passover lamb is to be tsli-‘esh, literaly “roasted of fire.” And one is most definitely NOT to eat it raw or bashel mbushshal bimmayim. This COULD in the abstract be translated “do not eat of it…but cook [it] boiled in water” **but the point here is still the fact that it is to be boiled**. (Personally, translating it “boiled in water” is the least problematic in the context). And keep in mind the big picture: definitely “roasted of fire” ONLY; **absolutely DO NOT boil (bshl) it in water.”**

            I’m confused on what you’re saying, does the Exodus passage say to boil or NOT to boil? Your response seems to indicate both. How are conjunctions translated in Hebrew? I noticed you translated this passage “do not eat of it…BUT cook it boiled in water”. Every English translation has “OR” or “NOR cook it boiled in water”. Obviously a huge difference, one allows boiling bringing it into conflict with Deut, the other does not.

            I noticed you have mentioned Fishbone and the JPS several times, but several other commentaries such as Keil and Delitzch do not see this disconnect, just wanting to get your thoughts on choosing a commentary.

            Anyway, thank you for taking the time to respond.

          • Matt

            whoops…Fishbane. Fishbone is a tasty restaurant grill and bar :)

          • peteenns

            I mean to type OR, not But.

            As for the disconnect btwn Exod and Deut, you’ve cited the very verse that tells you the instructions don’t have an expiration date. This is where wider reading and studying the broader issues of biblical composition (as I mentioned previously) will help you, but you’ll have to move beyond commentaries such as K&D which are quite dated.

          • Charles Fields

            The use of qualifying words/means such as “fire” and “water” suggests to me that bshl could be used to speak of boiling or roasting (and probably “baking” also, per 2Sam 13.8).

          • Daniel Fisher

            Matt, I appreciate what you’re saying in regard to the “lasting ordinance” thing – in that I can’t see how each and every particular instruction given to the people on that first passover could be understood as being subject to the command to “obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance…”

            Otherwise, every single generation to come would be expected to put the blood of the lamb over their doorposts to ward off the judgment against the firstborn, to eat it with belt fastened and staff in hand and in haste, to not go out of their house until morning, etc. It does sound as though the meal itself, but not every specific instruction unique to this setting, was what was to be celebrated “as a lasting ordinance.”

            Now, whether the “for each family” thing is part of that lasting ordinance, I can appreciate that being up for discussion – but I would agree that there are at least some instructions given for that night which would not (could not?) be understood as subject to the “lasting ordinance” command. Though I’m always open to correction – does anyone know if there is any later reference to continuing all aspects of these original instructions (blood over the doorposts, etc.)?

  • dfrese

    Pete, you writing satire is loooong overdue. Also: it’s really a sad state of affairs that your disclaimers at the end are necessary (I know they are).

  • Sarah

    Psalm 50: 9a RSV

    “I will accept no bull from your house.”

    I kid. Of course I will because this is glorious! I love your sense of humor!! I do hate that you hate to clarify that it was satire, though. Much funnier without but I understand why the disclaimer is there. Good work! Oh, someone put this on the wall for my Facebook group, “I don’t believe in the rapture. But if I’m wrong, can I have your stuff?” Join us if you like!

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/21603126608/

  • Sarah Silberman

    This doesn’t feel right. Isn’t there a more congenial way to disagree?

  • david kim

    pete, i’ve really appreciated a lot of your writing, but this sounds like kind of a dick thing to write about a person that strongly disagrees with you, no? that’s just the feeling i got from it. with that said, am enjoying “evolution of adam” right now. :)

  • John

    Ok, I laughed at this. And I think Mr. Ham can probably handle the humor; he seems like a big boy.

  • Kelly Reimer

    I didn’t find this “joke” very funny at all. In fact you’re humor is rather sickening. I don’t think God found it very funny either.

    • LoneWolf343

      Let Him come down and do something about it if He finds it so unamusing.

      Of course, the entire point is mocking the human arrogance of speaking for God, so it’s not that you didn’t find the joke funny, but that it went sailing right over your head.

      • GibbyD

        I will speak for God to you !! ” Repent toward God (Holy Love) and place your faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ( God incarnate) ” ( Acts 20:21). YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN !!! ( John 3:3; I Peter 1:23)KJB Do this soon before you die or, if you don’t , you will burn on fire forever. ( I John 5:13; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:17)KJB

        • LoneWolf343

          Sheesh, Pete, how do you get these people? Slactivist doesn’t get these loonies. :|

          • GibbyD

            “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:That no flesh should glory in his presence.But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” (I Corinthians 1:27-31)KJB

          • LoneWolf343

            Mister, I am the son of a Penecostal preacher. I’ve had more scripture quoted at me than you have actually read. I know things about the Bible you can’t possibly conceive. Moreover, most of the Bible-thumpers I’ve had to deal with could at least stay on topic. What you’re doing is no different from Tourette’s syndrome.

          • GibbyD

            Concerning your dad , God has no grandchildren . “…. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” ( I Corinthians 8:1)KJB. You say you have heard allot of Scripture quoted at you ? I guess you missed an ingredient that you should have added to all those Scriptures for them to of been beneficial to you. ” For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” ( Hebrews 4:2)KJB. If you want to boast about what you think you know more than others, how is that gonna help you ? You should at least be able to spell properly the denomination you grew up in if you are gonna use that tactic . “And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” ( I Corinthians 8:2)KJB. Texting on comment lines is not the same as formal writing for a theological white paper. If you can’t follow and or understand what I am writing , it is because you are really not paying attention or are too proud to receive it . “The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.” ( Psalm 25:9)KJB. There are a few different ” Pentecostal’ denominations that I am familar with . Some believe that a born again Christian can lose their salvation and be in danger again of going to hell. I believe that teaching is in error and I think allot of former and current ‘Pentecostals’ have gotten messed up in their thinking and in their lives because of it . God may have to chasten His Children and or even have their body killed , but if you are truly born again , you can never lose your salvation . ( Hebrews 12:8; I Corinthians 5:5; Philippians 1:6)KJB. *IF* born again , always born again . It is understandable that those who were taught with some of the false teachings in the Pentecostal religion , that they may rebel and or have confusion. I pray you simply trust in what Christ has done for you at Calvary and forgive those who taught you incorrectly .

          • LoneWolf343

            The “Penecostal religion?” What, they’re a separate religion, now? The difference between whatever you are (provided you are not Catholic or Mormon,) and they are merely cosmetic.

          • GibbyD

            Religion , other than that which is described in James 1:27, is that for which is an attempt by man to bind himself to God by some act or deeds that he feels would merit enough favor or earn salvation and or a higher station now or after death . Biblical salvation of a believer , is wholly the work of God for man and not a work of man for God . It includes every divine undertaking necessary to deliver the believing sinner from his lost estate until his final presentation in Glory .

            I typed ‘Pentecostal religion ‘ , not “Penecostal religion “. Many denominational names of those that profess to be followers of Jesus also have a works system of salvation and that is why I address them the way I do . There is only One Name that matters . “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” ( Acts 4:12)KJB

          • Guest

            I’m sure everyone is suitably impressed by your very high opinion of yourself.

          • Kelly Reimer

            You’re the son of a preacher? Hard to believe. “Bible thumpers”? Mocking people who read the Bible. Doesn’t sound very Christian like.

          • LoneWolf343

            If you define Christian as “Whoever agrees with you,” then no, I am not. Of course, neither is Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, John Calvin, St. Francis, St. Augustine, Paul, Peter, Jesus, etc, etc, etc, and likely the guy who sits next to you in the pew once a week.

          • Kelly Reimer

            So what’s your definition of a Christian?

      • Kelly Reimer

        It didn’t go over my head.The joke was repulsive.

        • LoneWolf343

          What was repulsive about it? I would like some details beyond “It made me feel bad.”

          • Kelly Reimer

            If someone publicly told a big fat lie about YOU and then said “oh , I’m just joking”, you wouldn’t find that offensive?

          • Pixie5

            Except he didn’t do that. He has taken Ham’s own arguments and then humorously took them to their logical conclusion. You can’t claim a literal belief in the Bible and ignore the ramifications of that belief.

            A man who believes that fire-breathing dragons existed and that we should ram that idea down school children’s throats as “science” is actually a walking parody himself. He doesn’t need anyone making jokes about him when he is already a joke.

          • Kelly Reimer

            That’s exactly what he did! Pete told a lie about Ken and at the end of that lie Pete said he was joking. We didn’t know he was joking till the end. There are better ways to respond to Ken than to lie about him.

          • Pixie5

            Seriously??? Everyone on here, including me, knew it was satire. How can it not be? You seriously think that Ham would blast God for “not taking the Bible seriously?”

            I don’t know what to make of you if you can’t figure out something so simple. Dr, Enns should not have even had to include a disclaimer
            .
            You should not blame Dr. Enns for your lack of reading comprehension skills.

          • Kelly Reimer

            Not everyone knew it, and I’m not just talking about me.Satire or not,do you “seriously” think this was the right way to go about this?

          • Pixie5

            I think it is a clever way of showing the problems with Ham’s arguments.

          • Kelly Reimer

            Lying is clever? Last I checked it was wrong.

          • Pixie5

            Kelly, do you ever watch Letterman or Leno? They do the same kind of jokes. Or maybe Saturday Night Live? I doubt that you are offended by that And if you are then there is something wrong with you.

            Let it go.

          • Kelly Reimer

            Nope, no interest in those shows.
            So, because I think lying is wrong, then you think something’s wrong with me?

          • Pixie5

            If you think humor is wrong then yes there is something wrong with you.

            As to these other supposed people who didn’t know that he was joking, no one has made the claim that he was lying. Only you. Some felt it was in poor taste but they knew that he was joking.

            There is definitely something wrong with you if you believe that there was even the slightest possibility that Ham would condemn God for not taking the Bible seriously
            .
            Kelly now you are only embarrassing yourself and frankly I don’t have the time to teach you what humor is. You sound like Data from Star Trek, except at least HE knew that such a thing existed.

            Or maybe you just like starting pointless arguments.

            I’m done.

          • Kelly Reimer

            There’s nothing humorous about lying.That was my point to begin with. Yes, it was VERY poor taste.

          • Guest

            There is nothing wrong with you.

            Proverbs 26, 18
            Like a crazed archer scattering firebrands and deadly arrows is the man who deceives his neighbor, and then says, “I was only joking.”

            Proverbs 12, 1
            He who loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

          • Kelly Reimer

            Well, definitely evidence of that here! Thanks for the reply.

          • Ross

            Please suggest a way, other than satire which is a good way to go about pointing out that Ken Ham is; a, plain wrong and b, falling into the camp of evil by his vitriolic attacks on real believers who don’t follow his own rather esoteric “ghettoised” beliefs in a literal reading of “non-literal” piece of religious writing?

          • http://biblicalvision.org Richard Stals

            I knew he was joking from the first ‘quote’. Its obvious to anyone who is able to think rationally that this is a parody of Ken Ham’s extreme fundamentalist view of the Scriptures. If you genuinely think that a parody article like this is a lie – you may need to go take some literature classes that talk about genre.

          • Kelly Reimer

            So, you really think this “joke” was in good taste? I happened upon this while browsing and the title caught my eye, so I investigated. I read through it and couldn’t believe someone would “joke” about somebody else in this sort of way.If it’s not a lie, then what is it? It’s certainly not the truth!

          • http://biblicalvision.org Richard Stals

            Hi Kelly, I can honestly appreciate your issue with the article. Would I have written this? No. I have a different style of engagement in issues that centres more on the arguments for and against. However, I have seen saitre used quite effectively to highlight another’s extreme view, and Ken Ham has an extreme view of the Scriptures.

            However, I don’t think it is helping your argument to insist that a clearly satirical article is a lie. The definition of a lie is not ‘the opposite of the truth’. A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive another person. This article didn’t try to convince people that Ken Ham actually said these things – that *would* be a lie.

            If this is lying because it isn’t ‘true’, then every fiction book ever written is also a lie. (Hence my comment on genre, above).

            I think your argument would have better traction here if you focused on whether or not such a satirical article is appropriate, if it is moral or upholds a Christian ethic etc.

          • Kelly Reimer

            Richard, that’s the best answer I’ve had yet. Thank you for your input! (And you said it without trying to belittle me.)

          • Pixie5

            I also should point out that Ham has been caught lying many times, even in the article Dr, Enns linked to. He claims that Bible says the earth is a sphere. It does not. The verse in question refers to a FLAT CIRCLE. They believed that the earth was a flat circle surrounded by ocean. We actually have ancient maps depicting this cosmology.

            And Ham with his misguided creationist ideas apparently is too ignorant to know that the word “firmament” in the Genesis story refers to a SOLID DOME over the earth containing the sun. moon and the stars. He is either ignorant or a liar.

            By the way if I remember correctly Ham tried to get Dr, Enns kicked out of a Christian homeschooling convention simply because Dr, Enns believes in evolution.

          • Guest

            The verse saying ‘the circle of the earth’ doesn’t specify a flat circle unless you want to jump to that conclusion. I wouldn’t.

          • Pixie5

            A circle is always flat. It would have to say “sphere” which it doesn’t. Besides we have ancient maps showing this. I guess all those bible scholars and historians have “jumped to conclusions” as well.

            Circle :A 2-dimensional shape made by drawing a curve that is always the same distance from a center.

            Sphere. A 3-dimensional object shaped like a ball. Every point on the surface is the same distance from the center

            Now that was easy…lol!

            Got anything else for me?

          • Guest

            Those ‘ancient maps’ are not the Bible. Again, you are jumping to conclusions. If I told you water was wet you would argue. There is no point in talking to you.

          • Pixie5

            No it is the creationists who jump to conclusions by taking words and assuming that they mean what you want them to mean according to modern science.. I already gave you the dictionary definitions. How is that “jumping to conclusions”?

            I notice that you have completely ignored my point about the firmament being a solid dome. That is further proof of my position. Can you argue your way out of that?

            The Jewish Encyclopedia describes the firmament as follows:

            “The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[15]”

            Notice that this also confirms a flat earth model.

            From Wikipedia

            “The original word raqia is derived from the root raqa ( רקע), meaning “to beat or spread out”, e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.[4][6] Raqa adopted the meaning “to make firm or solid” in Syriac, a major dialect of Aramaic (the vernacular of Jesus) and close cognate of Hebrew”

            If maps from the ancient near east correspond with the Bible descriptions then there is no reason to reject them. The Bible also says the earth is immovable which again conflicts with modern science..

            You are the one who claims that water is not wet.

          • Guest

            ​ ​

          • Pixie5

            Such an intelligent response. I am truly staggered by the amount of time you have spent researching in order to refute what I have written.
            A raspberry is not a response. It is what people do when they are stumped. Thank you for confirming that I am right.

          • Guest

            Don’t get all carried away with yourself. You’re not right, you’re pedantic, and I can’t be bothered to respond to you anymore. Spin that into a victory if you want, I don’t care.

          • Pixie5

            “Spin that into a victory if you want”

            I will thank you very much. People who refuse to debate have already lost.

    • John

      I for one don’t think He finds your avatar picture funny.

      • Kelly Reimer

        My avatar happens to be a photo of me and my dad when I was about 10.It wasn’t meant to be funny.He was a great and Godly dad.He passed away 12 years ago and I miss him greatly.Is this your idea of a joke?

        • RH

          Kelly, you’re our idea of a joke.

          • Kelly Reimer

            Uncalled for.

          • peteenns

            I agree with Kelly here, folks. Let’s remember to use our inside voices.

  • Andrew Dowling

    To add insult to injury, Lifeway Publishing has blackballed God and no longer will feature His work in their stores . . .

  • Guest

    You need to work on your shtick.

  • GibbyD

    You are completely messed up . ” Repent toward God and place your faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ ” ( Acts 20:21) KJB. If you already are truly born again ( John 3:3; I Peter 1:23)KJB,, then get right with The Father ( I John 1:9)KJB. God’s Word is The King James Bible . ( Psalm 12:6,7)KJB

    • John

      I call poe.

      • GibbyD

        What does Edgar Allen have to do with any of this ?

        • Pixie5

          Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism

          • Guest

            You’ll just have to take Gibby’s word for it that he is sincere in his beliefs.

          • Pixie5

            I am not saying he is or is not. I am just giving the definition.

          • Guest

            That’s very generous of you, how wonderful you are.
            Whatever would we do without the benefit of your knowledge of internet geekspeak.. Why, we’d be lost.. forever lost…

          • GibbyD

            Thanks for the definition because I did not know that term .

    • Pixie5

      God’s word is the KJV?

      ” The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

      7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6-7

      Sorry it does not mention KJV or in fact the bible at all. And you guys talk about taking the Bible literally? You are guilty of reading into the text something that is not there. Beyond that it is more than a little ethnocentric to believe that only an English translation can be the only correct one.

      There were many translations into English and other languages long before the KJV came along. So why on earth do you think that the KJV is the only “correct” translation?

      One problem with the KJV is that its language is so archaic that it is almost impossible to understand it. Words have changed meanings which means that a word that has one meaning in today’s English does not mean the same as what was meant in the old English.

      You are idolizing the Bible, which as with any ancient or even some modern books, contains errors. The height of arrogance is to claim that it is perfect in every way. Did you know that the verse talking about a camel going through the eye of a needle is a mistranslation? It is supposed to be “rope” not camel. Whatever scribe wrote this down got two words that sounded similar to each other confused. There are also cases of stuff being added to the Bible by scribes as well. That whole snake-handling set of verses at the end of one of the gospels is not present at all in older manuscripts. This is so widely recognized now that many Bibles have a footnote saying this.

      And yes there are plenty of problems with the Bible contradicting itself because it was written by different authors in different periods of history.

      • GibbyD

        I use to think that way Pixie until I studied it further . I have been saved now about 35 years and am glad that I can now trust a Bible in English that I believe is God’s perfect Word without error. At Bible College we were taught Koine Greek and some Hebrew . We were told to memorize the KJB but that it was just a translation like all the rest . The NASB, NIV and other translations were also used. It was not until the late 80s that I began to question these more modern translations . I use to think those that believe the KJB was the only trustworthy translation were believers that were just naive. I don’t think that anymore . There is more to it than you think Pixie . Concerning you siting what you think are errors? I have seen them all explained and answered again and again . http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

        • Daniel Fisher

          I really am curious about the belief that the KJV is the only legitimate translation, in particular I have two questions, if you could. 1) Did people who spoke/read English simply not have the Bible, or any true Bible, before 1611? 2) Is it absolutely impossible for the KJV translation to ever be improved? Even if using the exact same Textus Receptus manuscripts, etc., is it absolutely impossibe that, one day, the translation could be updated to read, for example, “cattle” or “cows” instead of “kine”, as the word has become more and more obscure?

          While I disagree, I at least understand and appreciate the argument for using the Textus Receptus manuscripts…. What I don’t understand is the thought that only the 1611 words, even when that have become archaic or obscure in modèrn English, is still required for it to be truly “God’s” only approved or authorized version? Why not take the TR and make a new translation in modern words…. If necessary, under the “authorization” of Queen Elizabeth or her successor?

          • Pixie5

            There were actually many English translations at the time and the people who translated the KJV used them as part of their research. They also used the Latin Vulgate. The Textus Receptus manuscripts (which of course are not original manuscripts) were not the sole source for the KJV.

            We have now more resources than they had back then and access to older manuscripts. It seems like if you want accuracy then you should go back as far as you can in history.

          • Daniel Fisher

            Concur; I’m relatively familiar at least with the Geneva Bible, the more popular one that predated the KJV; even the puritans and other Christians at the time were always happy to continue to sharpen and get an ever more accurate and useful Bible, hence why the KJV was born to start with; I just don’t follow why some believe that the desire or need to continually improve and sharpen just ceased in 1611.

          • GibbyD

            Many of the modern translations have tried but if you compare them all to the King James , they fall short and or reveal their weakness and errors .

          • Daniel Fisher

            Thanks for the reply – but what you’ve offered here is merely an opinion (not that you aren’t well within your rights to hold it) – but I am genuinely interested in the argument and facts you might present – besides, if *I* compared them to the King James, I would personally find KJV falling short and revealing its weakness, especially and simply in using archaic language.

            again, for example, I am genuinely curious – by what objective standard would someone believe that “kine” is an objectively better way to translate rather than “cows” or “cattle” in today’s world – this is an obvious weakness to me, and numerous other similar examples where updated language would help people understand God’s word – even if one is convinced that the Textus Receptus is the most appropriate/true text to use, why not update into modern English? It is really that I just don’t even see the argument – even if modern translations have failed, shouldn’t that just be more motivation for scholars to try again with the Textus Receptus with extreme care? – on exactly what basis is the conclusion made that there were no legitimate English translations before 1611, and why conclude that no translation after 1611 can or could ever be legitimate?

          • Pixie5

            You make some good points. In fact I think that more than a few people most likely give up reading the KJV because it is difficult to understand. Not quite as bad as Shakespeare, but if you are not familiar with old English then it can be a problem.

            Even though I am familiar with some old English newer translations make it easier to understand. Often times when people claim that the Bible has been tampered with in newer translations it is simply a matter of clarifying the meanings in modern language.

            I did surprise my sister one time while playing scrabble though when I put down the word “kine” ;)

          • GibbyD

            “The Hebrew word translated as KINE in the King James Bible is pay-rah and it is found some 27 times in the Old Testament. It is translated by three different English words in the KJB – 1. Kine 2. Cow and 3. Heifer. The King James Bible uses the word KINE 19 times, Cow 2 times and Heifer 6 times.”

            “Not only does the King James Bible use the word KINE here in Genesis 41: 2, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 27 but so do the following Bible translations – Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534 (he translated Genesis), Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims bible 1610, the KJB 1611, the Revised Version of 1881 (20 times), Darby 1890 (26 times), Young’s 1898 (15 times), the ASV of 1901 (13 times), the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) of 1917 (uses KINE 20 times), the Hebrew Publishing Company Bible of 1936, and the UpDated Bible Version of 2003-2004 some 13 times! How is that for “archaic”!?”

            “NOBODY seriously believes that ANY of these endless and ever changing “bibles” are the complete and inerrant words of God – Nobody. Not even the people who keep churning them out year after year.”

            –These quotes are from an interesting site that may give you some reason . http://brandplucked.webs.com/kinecattle.htm

            Yes, what I have stated is my opinion but I base it on 35 years study as a born again Christian. The Bible College I matriculated at years ago, gave me the basics concerning Inspiration , What is Canon , manuscript evidence and investigation , transmission , translations , languages etc. It was not without initial hesitation that I came to believe today what I do about The KJB. I believe the bottom line for me was , WHAT WOULD BE MY FINAL AUTHORITY .

          • Daniel Fisher

            Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I honestly couldn’t argue with you that there is something to be said for Elizabethan English.

            I’m wondering, though, would you go so far to meet me as to acknowledge that the “complete and inerrant words of God” are best found in the Greek and Hebrew originals, and that English translations can only be embraced as he inerrant words of God insofar as they accurately represent what is in the original – realizing that you understand the King James to be the most absolutely accurate to the originals?

            Also, I wonder if we can also agree that if we desire to provide an appropriate translation for non-English speakers (say, in German), that we ought to be translating directly from Greek/Hebrew to the new language, and not using the King James as our primary text, as then we would be making a translation of a translation?
            It raises a question to me – has God provided a ‘proper’ translation, like the King James, in each Language? e.g., is Luther’s original translation THE correct translation that needs no further update in German, Reina Valera in Spanish is “the” correct translation in Spanish, etc.?

          • Pixie5

            Disadvantages of the KJV

            The team of 47 scholars who translated the KJV did an excellent job. However, the English language has changed a lot in the nearly 400 years since it was published. Many KJV words and phrases, such as Lord of hosts, sabaoth, emerods and concupiscence, would not be meaningful to most people today. Worse, many other KJV words, such as charity, trespass, profit, cousin, and remission, have different primary meanings today than they did in 1611 and could mislead the reader. As a result, many English-speaking people find the KJV is quite difficult to read and understand.

            Modern Bible Versions

            Recent developments in archaeology, scientific dating methods and Biblical scholarship have made possible a number of modern, more accurate English translations of the scriptures. These newer versions are translated from the oldest and best ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, rather than from the King James version or the Latin Vulgate

            Omitted Verses

            It is often pointed out that modern translations omit a few of the verses found in the KJV, and this is sometimes believed to be an attempt to distort the Bible’s teachings. However, the reason is that certain verses are not found in the oldest and best Bible manuscripts. Thus, they are omitted to accurately preserve the original Bible text. (The chapter and verse numbers were added to the Bible in the Middle Ages; they were not part of the original Bible manuscripts. Thus, an omitted verse does not mean that something was omitted from the original texts.)

            Some of these extra verses were added to certain manuscript copies as margin notes or as prayers for use in public worship. Those manuscripts were then copied and recopied without making it clear that the extra verses were later additions. The most famous example is the doxology, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.” that the KJV adds to the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13. That phrase is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts of Matthew.

            http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_kjv.htm

          • GibbyD

            Yes , the English language has changed but not for the better. in fact, it has deteriorated and has been corrupted into a slang ,compared to what it once was. During height of the Elizabethan English language , is where we find some the greatest works of literature and poetry . Shakespeare for one . The following message was preached by a man who believes The King James Bible is the Word of God and he gives his reasons why. This preacher is about 93 now and still preaching . The sound is not the best but if you like real good preaching , you will enjoy it and get a blessing . If you don’t , it will make you feel uncomfortable. ( I Corinthians 1:21)KJB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFx6B3Lwwoo

    • http://biblicalvision.org Richard Stals

      Hey GibbyD – Its not KJB its KJV. The King James *Version* is just a man-translated version of the Bible.

      • GibbyD

        Richard , where is your final authority on that ?

        • Pixie5

          Where is your final authority? It took 47 men to translate the KJV and they compared and checked with each other. They also consulted many English version bibles that existed at the time. The KJV did not fall out of the sky like manna.

          From Wikipedia

          “The flyleaf of most printings of the Authorized Version observes that the text had been “translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty’s special command.”

          “James’ instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops’ Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops’ Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of Taverner’s Bible and the New Testament of the Douay–Rheims Bible.”

          • GibbyD

            So in essence , are you saying that there is no final authority as to what God’s Word is ? Who does that make the final authority then ? I guess that would make you that final authority as you pick and chose what you want to believe according to your own preference . If you concede to “Hebrew” or “Greek” scholars, remember the majority of those the world considers the best , are not even professing believers . Pixie , I own an original 1597 Bishop’s Bible , and you are right , there are not many differences from it and my 2014 King James Bible. There are changes in spellings and the non-inspired books have been removed that were placed between the testaments . They were placed in the center of the two testaments in the Bishops Bible to show that they were not considered inspired but more or less historical writings but not Scripture .

          • Pixie5

            No there is no final authority because no book is perfect, even the bible. But you have just decided arbitrarily that the KJV is the “right” one. God didn’t say that. You did.

            The translators of the KJV did not have access to the oldest and best manuscripts that we have now. Beyond that it is not necessary to be a Christian scholar to make translations. In fact it is probably a good thing because it eliminates bias. A habit of Christian scholars is to try to harmonize the entire bible and fit it into their particular version of Christianity. I think each writing should stand on its own, especially the Hebrew writings. They all do not say the same thing and Christianizing the Torah is a mistake.

          • GibbyD

            I did not make an arbitrary decision about The KJB. I have studied it for years . The ” Oldest and so called best ” were not “found” when and while God used The KJB for every world-wide and national revival in history . There has not been one since the first modern translations came out around the beginning of the 20 century . There are many good reasons to believe the KJB as opposed to every other translation and even so called older manuscripts .

          • Pixie5

            Again only an opinion…

          • GibbyD

            And so is your “opinion” that it is “only ” an “opinion” . :-)

          • GibbyD

            ‘The Creed of The Alexandrian Cult ‘ —http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/63106-creed-alexandrian-cult-dr-peter-ruckman.html

          • Pixie5

            LOL..calling other translations “satanic” is extreme. Again, only an opinion…

          • Pixie5

            One good thing that is coming from this for me is to do some interesting research even though we disagree. I like to learn.

            I have found that the very long preface to the original KJV (there have been 6 revisions) shows categorically that the translators did not consider themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit and that there was dissent on the meanings of some passages, so they included footnotes on disputed passages.

            Ironically the long preface was in response to critics that felt that they were “tampering with God’s Word.”

            I will not post all of it because it is too long however this section caught my eye:

            “REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH

            Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, “whatsoever things are necessary are manifest,” as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, “In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity.” [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] “it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.” There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.”
            http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions

          • GibbyD

            “I have found that the very long preface to the original KJV (there have been 6 revisions) shows categorically that the translators did not consider themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit and that there was dissent on the meanings of some passages, so they included footnotes on disputed passages.” —-Pixie, how does “Six revisions of the preface” ,show that they did not think they were being guided by The Holy Spirit ? That only shows me that they wanted to get it right , meaning they were being circumspect to say the right things concerning explaining what they were doing . Also , since they were praying for God to guide them , why would they not expect The Holy Spirit was guiding them ?

          • Pixie5

            I came across this as well. I have noticed for awhile that Christians tend to quote out of context to support their point of view:

            “Wilkinson was the first to misapply Psalm 12: 6-7 specifically to the KJV as though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of verse six [when in fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted saints of verse five, as I demonstrated in my essay, "A Careful Investigation of Psalm 12: 6-7," The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 21, October 14, 1983, later issued in booklet form as "Why Psalm 12: 6-7 is not a Promise of the Divine Preservation of Scripture"] ”

            http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions

            5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

            6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

            7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

            Psalm 12:5-7

          • GibbyD

            Read the whole chapter . I memorized it a couple decades ago . If verse seven did not refer to verse six , verse six would never have been placed there .

          • Pixie5

            From the Preface of the 1611 KJV:

            “… we are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travelled before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, … that we acknowledge them to have been raised up by God, … and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity, in everlasting remembrance. … Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser; so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being helped by their labors, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.”

            Notice this: “Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser..”
            http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions

          • GibbyD

            There is some very good discussion concerning this in a written response by Dr. Thomas D. Holland about a book written by James White , “The King James Only controversy’ http://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html

          • GibbyD
        • http://biblicalvision.org Richard Stals

          Hi GibbyD. I hope you didn’t take too much offense at my short attempt to highlight what I perceived a bit of an extreme view on a particular translation of the Scriptures.

          I’m not sure what you are asking by ‘final authority’. As I understand the issue, the Bible was originally written in several ancient languages (like Hebrew, Greek etc.). The Kings James Version is simply one of a long line of translations from earlier manuscripts (many, but not all, from the original languages – the last six verses of revelation in the KJV were actually taken from the Latin Vugate) into the (then) current language. This is a matter of historical record – and I guess that is my ‘authority’.

          • GibbyD

            The following answer was not written to you Richard but I thought it applicable —– From Brother Herb Evans answering similar comments asking if he knew about those last six verses in Revelation —” NO, I did not KNOW that. And be prepared for a shock, you don’t KNOW that either. You have merely parroted an opinion of some scholar that believes that. While it is true that The last six verses of Codex 1r (Rev 22:16-21) , which Erasmus used, were missing, your parroted theory has been disputed by HOSKIER, on the evidence of manuscript 141*. You can’t seem to make up your mind whether to attack the KJB or attack the TR. Can you? Who says the TR is an error free Text? Can you prove it?

            In his 4th translation of his Greek New Testament (1527). Erasmus corrected much of this supposed translation Greek thought to be on the basis of a comparison with the Compluensian Polygot Bible. Other manuscripts, 296, 2049, and the margin of 2067 may also be included in this evidence. The Book of life versus the tree of life dispute may also be supported by the Old Boharic version, the writings of Ambrose (397 AD) Bachiarius (late 4th century), Primasius (552 AD), and Haymo (9th century). There is internal evidence also, for instance, the way that David is spelled in Erasmus’ translation was the same as Koine Greek, something Erasmus would not have done if he were translating from the Latin. The spelling of the critical text is in classical Greek.”

            *The Text of the Apocalypse, by H.C. Hoskier, London:Quaritch, 1929, vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454, 635

  • Big Mike

    When you’re haranguing your imaginary friend it’s time for a room with padded walls.

  • Guest

    I find Genesis 1 and 2 to be complementary, not contradictory.

    Septuagint 2 Chronicles 35,13: And they roasted the passover with fire according to the ordinance; and boiled the holy pieces in copper vessels and caldrons.

    What were the ‘holy pieces’ being boiled? More information is needed here.

    The verses in Leviticus seem to indicate a difference between unintentional and deliberate contact with a menstruating woman.

    Critics have tried for thousands of years to show errors in the Bible, so far without success, but maybe some discrepancies are to be expected in light of Jeremiah 8,8: How can you say, “We are wise, we have the law of the Lord”? Why, that has been changed into falsehood by the lying pen of the scribes! The wise are confounded, dismayed and ensnared; since they have rejected the word of the Lord, of what avail is their wisdom?

    • Aesop

      “Without success?” There are many, many errors in the Bible, in plain sight.

      • Guest

        They’ve all been adequately explained.

        • Pixie5

          Here is just a sampling of the contradictions in the Bible in the most important story for Christians:

          “IV. JESUS’ TRIALS, DEATH AND RESURRECTION

          A. THE TRIALS

          Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals.

          1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?

          a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).

          b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).

          2. When did the priests and scribes gather together to question Jesus?

          a. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.

          b. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus’ arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest.

          c. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.

          d. John mentions only the high priest – no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus.

          3. Was Jesus questioned by Herod?

          a. Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11).

          b. Matthew, Mark and John make no mention of Herod. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.

          4. Who was responsible for Jesus’ death, Pilate or the Jews?

          The gospel writers go to every conceivable length to absolve the Romans in general, and Pilate in particular, of Jesus’ crucifixion and to blame it on the Jews. The reason, of course, was that Christianity was going to have to exist under Roman rule for many years, which is why the New Testament contains nothing critical of the Romans, even though they were hated for their heavy taxation, and Pilate was hated for his brutality.

          For the church, the Jews made an appropriate scapegoat because the Jews were a thorn in side of the early church. The Jews, of course, had far greater knowledge of Jewish laws and traditions than the largely gentile church, and were able to call attention to some of the errors being taught by the church.

          The Biblical account of Pilate’s offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

          a. What had Barabbas done?

          1. Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder.

          2. John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a robber.

          b. Pilate’s “custom” of releasing a prisoner at Passover.

          This is pure invention – the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival. Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesus’ death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews.

          c. Pilate gives in to the mob.

          The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob. This is ridiculous in light of Pilate’s previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate’s method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them (often killing them) into submission. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.

          5. Who put the robe on Jesus?

          a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.

          b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

          B. THE CRUCIFIXION

          1. Crucified between two robbers

          Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.

          2. Peter and Mary near the cross

          When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross, they run afoul of another historical fact – the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was allowed near (least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person).

          3. The opened tombs

          According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.

          Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening – historians of that time certainly know nothing of it – neither do the other gospel writers.

          C. THE RESURRECTION

          1. Who found the empty tomb?

          a. According to Matthew 28:1, only “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.”

          b. According to Mark 16:1, “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.”

          c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, “the women who had come with him out of Galilee.” Among these women were “Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James.” Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

          d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

          2. Who did they find at the tomb?

          a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

          b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

          c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

          d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.

          3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

          a. According to Mark 16:8, “they said nothing to anyone.”

          b. According to Matthew 28:8, they “ran to report it to His disciples.”

          c. According to Luke 24:9, “they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest.”

          d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

          V. THE ASCENSION

          According to Luke 24:51, Jesus’ ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

          According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus’ ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.”
          http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

          • Guest

            Is this an exercise for me? I don’t think I’ll bother with this one. If you really want these ‘contradictions’ answered you can Google it yourself, if you dare. I have no doubt that they have all been explained already.

          • Pixie5

            I have the answer. I am not asking any questions. The answer is that the Bible is inconsistent and full of errors However you have just eliminated your “right” to make unsubstantiated claims on this site. Oh yes you can still post I am sure, but no one will take you seriously. Don’t say something if you can’t back it up.

          • Guest

            Oh so you’re the boss of blog now, are you? I’ll take that under advisement and get back to you with a decision after you make me a sandwich.

          • Pixie5

            Are you twelve? That is not a mature answer. And I never said I was the “boss of the blog”. I just said that no one will take you seriously if you are not prepared to back up your claims.
            If you could then you would so that tells me all I need to know. Have a good evening.

          • Guest

            You’re going now? Well if you feel you must…

          • GibbyD
          • Pixie5

            Well I give good marks to whoever wrote this for creativity but it is very convoluted:

            “The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other “bibles” do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome. We don’t need an Egyptian version, for Egypt is a type of the WORLD in the Bible. God called His people OUT of Egypt (Exod. 3-14), and God called His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1 with Matt. 2:13-15). Why, the Bible says that “every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians” in Gen. 46:34, and the Lord Jesus Christ is called a SHEPHERD in John chapter ten. Alexandria, Egypt, is associated with SUPERSTITION in Acts 28:11, and Aquilla and Pricilla had to set an Egyptian straight on his doctrine in Acts chapter 18. Alexandrians are also found DISPUTING WITH STEPHEN in Acts 6:9. So we don’t need a “bible” from Alexandria, Egypt.”

            That doesn’t make a lick of sense as he is using bible verses completely out of context. And I doubt his history is correct too. I will do so research but from what I can tell he just seems to be pulling things out of thin air.

            And the KJV is the proper translation being it was written under a “God ordained king?” That part is a bit unnerving to me because this author says that we should have a theocratic monarchy. Someone like this should not be listened to if you value your freedom.

            And this?:

            “In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul’s kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What’s the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.”

            That is just plain silly and stupid.

            Oh and by the way when the writer of Revelations gave his warning about changing the text he was not referring to the Bible since it did not exist yet. It was a warning to scribes to be faithful while copying it.

          • GibbyD

            Pixie there is so much to respond to in your critique but I will just address your last comment and paragraph about t he Bible not existing at that point . — The Word of God is eternal and has always existed and always will exist . Also , how you phrased it is not exactly how the Bible says it . It is mentioned a few places not just Revelation so even if you do not think it was referring to the whole “Bible”, the other verses cover them too . “18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” ( Revelation 22:18,19)KJB.
            “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:6)KJB.

          • Pixie5

            “19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy…”

            That refers to the book of Revelation, since it says “prophecy”. You are reading into it something that is not there. The only reason why people take this out of context is because it is bound into a larger book that did not exist until the third century AD. And yes it is logical to assume that he meant that scribes needed to copy it faithfully. No one is adding or subtracting now.

            “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:6)KJB

            If this refers to a book at all, it would be the Torah.

          • GibbyD

            Proverbs 30:5 gives the context and it was in reference to , “Every word of God.” God is stating for MAN not to add to his words. Adding does not only mean additional words, but can also mean changing them to mean what they do not. When you add new words as equal to Scripture you are really taking away from Scripture.
            “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:6)KJB

            It also includes a warning not to be adding books that claim inspiration from God, but rather, are only books of false religion and cults .

          • Pixie5

            “It also includes a warning not to be adding books that claim inspiration from God, but rather, are only books of false religion and cults ”

            LOL…that is exactly what Christians did. So according to Proverbs, which is a part of the Torah, the New Testament should be tossed out as a false religion.

          • GibbyD

            The New Testament fulfills the Old and does not contradict it . God’s Word again , ALWAYS EXISTED !!! “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” ( Isaiah 40:8)KJB

            it was not created by Christians . God gave it to man

            ” For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” ( Psalm 119:89)KJB.

          • Pixie5

            Your opinion only…

          • GibbyD

            While you are looking for errors , please give it a pause for a moment to listen to a testimony of one man who made it his mission to disprove The Bible but found some things that convinced him otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33buor5NfcU

          • GibbyD

            amen . I have not found one yet that could not be explained and or answered sufficiently and I have been born again now for 35 years . Often times it is simply that they choose to use a modern translation and by doing so you will indeed “discover” some “problems” .

          • GibbyD

            if you just take the first one Pixie mentioned and or cut and pasted , it claims that there is a contradiction about where they took Jesus after his arrest . She or the post she cut and pasted says ” ” directly” or “immediately” after . It says nothing of that kind in the text. Luke 3:2 also helps explain .”Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.”. Those that attack The Word of God are very deceitful about how they do it. They have fooled many into agreeing with them and passing on their false information .

          • Pixie5

            Thank you for addressing my post

            You still have a problem since according to Jewish law there can only be ONE High Priest. Just like there can only be one Pope.

            From the Oxford Bible dictionary:

            High Priest:

            Spokesman for the people to God, and for God to the people. Aaron and his successor Eleazar were precursors of the institution (Num. 27: 21 ff.) which is mentioned in Lev. 21: 10. He alone was anointed and possessed authority over lay officials. He was clothed with the ephod in which were set stones bearing the names of the twelve tribes, and on his head he wore a kind of turban or mitre (Exod. 28: 36–7). Zadok and Abiathar were chief priests under David (2 Sam. 20: 25), and Zadok’s descendants were high priests in the first and second Temples. Joshua came back from the Exile as high priest (Ezra 2: 2). Under Herod the Great high priests no longer held the office for life and Annas was appointed by Quirinius governor of Syria in 6 CE until 15 CE. After several short tenures Caiaphas, who was Annas’ son-in-law, became high priest from 18 CE until 36 CE. The statement in John 11: 49 and 18: 13 that Caiaphas was high priest ‘that year’ does not mean that the office was an annual one (though it was for pagan high priests in Asia Minor and Syria): either John was mistaken or ‘that year’ means ‘that memorable year of the crucifixion’.

          • GibbyD

            I do not see anything you listed from the Oxford Bible Dictionary that says that there can ONLY be one priest serving at any given time . “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” ( Luke 3:2)KJB. This is also seen if you examine “Mark 2:26)KJB”How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” And compare that to (2 Samuel 8:17)KJB.” And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe;”— Zadok and Ahimelech served together and some have said that even Abiathar and Zadok had served together as High Priest before that. . And finally (Jeremiah 52:24)KJB ” And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the door:” ———– The commentaries of the commentaries of the commentaries of The Bible are no match for The Scriptures themselves .Not even an Oxford Bible Dictionary is the same as examining The Bible by itself and letting it teach , define and reveal . By the way , there is ONLY ONE HIGH PRIEST today and that is The LORD Jesus Who is present in every assembly of believers who are gathered unto and in His Name alone ( Matthew 18:18;22)KJB. He never relinquishes His place of preeminence among His people . The so called ” pope ” in Roman is only the CEO of the Roman catholic religion and NOT of The Body of Christ . And don’t they have two now?

          • Pixie5

            ” He alone [the high priest] was anointed and possessed authority over lay officials”

            You missed that in my post. What you are talking about are subordinate priests. I am not quite sure why you think I was saying that there was only one priest. Just one High Priest.
            .
            And I am not here to debate Catholicism. I was using it as an example only. However you are mistaken about two popes. Pope Emeritus Benedict is retired (remember he stepped down because of health reasons).

          • GibbyD

            ” He alone [the high priest] was anointed and possessed authority over lay officials”

            I see that you have that in quotes but I do not see the chapter and verse where that is found in The Bible . Would you please send me the reference ? There are occasions when there were two at the same time . Today ob course , we only have One Mediator between God and man.”For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” ( I Timothy 2:5)KJB.

            We who are saved though , are considered a ” royal priesthood ”
            “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” ( 1 Peter 2:9)KJB

          • Pixie5

            After some research, I concede your point. I think I have found the sources of the confusion.

            “David’s consolidation of the monarchy marked a key turning point in the history of the Israelite priesthood. Though the Temple would not be built until Solomon’s reign, David centralized the cult for the first time in Jerusalem, a former Jebusite city. In his effort to unite northern and southern factions, David shrewdly chose two high priests: Abiathar (a northern Levite) and Zadok (a southern Aaronide). By coupling a southern Aaronide priest with a northern Levitical priest, David attempted to broker a compromise in cultic leadership within Israel itself”
            http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/resource/priests.xhtml
            I found several possible explanations for the Annas and Caiaphas verse but this one seems to be a likely one:

            “Annas was the official High Priest beginning in AD 6. Mosaic Law specified that the appointment of a High Priest was for life, and so he was still High Priest by Jewish standards during the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.

            In AD 15 Valerius Gratus (Pilate’s predecessor) deposed Annas and his nephew Caiaphas was appointed. The Jews resented this arbitrary deposition — especially by a Roman, and Annas remained High Priest in their sight. So by the time of Jesus’ trial, Annas was technically (by Jewish standards) High Priest, as was his nephew Caiaphas (by both Jewish and Roman standards.)”

            http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/4667

          • Roger Peritone

            http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/102/

            Then you can explain away all of these then.

          • GibbyD

            Yes , each and every one can be answered .

          • Roger Peritone

            By enough bending and wishful thinking by believers, I have no doubt.

            One of my favorites is how they try to get around the problem of the two different ways that Judas died.

            One version has that he hung himself, the other version has it that he fell “headlong” into the ground and burst open or something.

            So: the apologists (like at Apologetics Press) say that verse described Judas hanging himself, while the other verse had Judas falling off of the tree after he died and bursting open onto the ground.

            Problems: 1) neither version says anything about the other (meaning: the version where he hung himself says nothing about his falling and bursting upon the ground AND the other version says nothing about Judas having hung himself first) It’s as if it was two entirely different accounts

            2) You do not fall “headlong” when you fall from a tree. You only go “headlong” when you are moving forward and then fall.

          • GibbyD

            There are so many good resources to find very reasonable answers and not by,” bending and wishful thinking ” . It is all at the touch of your finger tips so you do the research . I use to be a skeptic too about The Bible and it’s claims until I finally saw the enormous bulk of evidence that supported God’s Word for what it is , The Very Holy Word of God . Roger , will you please listen to the following testimony of Josh McDowell . In his testimony, he gives a very convincing argument as to why you can trust The Bible , believe it and be changed by it .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33buor5NfcU

          • Roger Peritone

            Josh McDowell? Seriously? Him? Oh boy. Yeah. More wishful thinking and dishonesty right from the get go.

            http://web.archive.org/web/20120418064313/http://www.godlesshaven.com/articles/bible-prophecy_pg1.html

          • GibbyD

            I read just three of the first of the 60 that Carr tries but fails to ” debunk “. He twisted and distorted so much of the little that I read of his piece that I did not want to waste my time on it any more . He says he ” debunks ” 60 prophecies of Jesus . He does not accomplish any such thing. Roger , how could you take any of that stuff so seriously that you would even be willing to post the site on this thread ? You lose allot of credibility by doing so . I can’t wait to see Carr’s answer to the remaining 305 fulfilled prophecies . That should be just as comical .

          • Roger Peritone

            I note that you only SAID that he “twisted and distorted” and that he did not debunk anything. You don’t explain how.

            Until you do, your brainless harping about MY having “lost credibility” means nothing to me. Once you posted the old refuted Josh McDowell, you lost it all right there:
            http://infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html

            In his book “Reasons Skeptics should Consider Christianity”, McDowell has an entire third of the book that was written by Glen Morton, a person who has since rejected young earth creationism (which what was promoted in that part of the book), and who has publicly repudiated those claims.

          • Roger Peritone
          • GibbyD

            I don’t trust anything you post . I cannot click on anything here and not suspect a computer virus . On more than one occasion I have tried to trust a non-believer and regretted it . Since you have no fear of God, why should I or anyone trust you? The best thing you could ever do for your life is to trust in The LORD Jesus Christ . He is God incarnate , He died for your sins and arose from the dead God is a Spirit ( John 4:24)KJB ” God is LOVE” ( I John 4:7,8)KJB. Jesus is

            The Son of God . That means He is God (Holy LOVE) incarnate. ( John 1:14)KJB God ( Holy LOVE) can exist at the same time that The incarnation of LOVE , The LORD Jesus Christ , is being crucified and dies . Jesus (The incarnation of Holy Love ) arose from the dead . Love is greater than death . “Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.” ( Song of Solomon 8:6)KJB

            ,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mq7rixm4MI

          • Roger Peritone

            A nice way to avoid having to learn anything:
            “I don’t trust anything you post . I cannot click on anything here and
            not suspect a computer virus . On more than one occasion I have tried
            to trust a non-believer and regretted it . ”
            And no-one has EVER been lead astray by a xian, right? Ask the people who thought they were “healed” by Benny Hinn. Or Peter Popoff, whose trickery was exposed by James Randi.

            Or even xian youtuber “VenomFangX” who asked for money for a charity, but kept it all himself. To top that one off, he’s back on youtube, doing what YOU are: Attacking the character of atheists.

            You said, among other things:
            “Since you have no fear of God, why should I or anyone trust you?”

            Here’s a clue for you about morality:

            “If you NEED someone to watch over you in order for you to behave, you are not a good person.”

            Look at all the pedophile priests out there, look at all the charlatan millionaire faith healers. How much is the “fear of the lord” helping THEM to act moral?

            To top it off, get a load of THIS, from a creationist christian. Look at the result of your kind of morality, lady:
            http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/comment-page-2/#comment-7376
            Lisle says, quoting me at first:
            “Remember Joseph saying that it would be immoral to NOT kill a baby if god commanded it?

            [Dr. Lisle: Joseph is right. What God commands is necessarily
            right. Any other definition of morality is ultimately arbitrary and
            therefore logically unjustified.]”

            And you complain about atheists?

            What do atheists feel about morality? Where do we get our morality from?
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted#What_about_morality.3F_I.27ve_always_heard_that_to_be_a_moral_person.2C_one_needs_a_higher_power.

            Here’s a list of atheist charities that helped out in a crisis a little while ago. Maybe it’ll help clear your head. Well, not yours, obviously: You have all but admitted that you will not look at any link I post.

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/23/time-cover-story-wrongly-attacks-atheists-for-not-helping-out-victims-of-oklahoma-tornadoes/

          • GibbyD

            Roger , there is nothing ” new ” that you could post in reference to disputes about the authenticity of The Bible or the claims of Christ , that I have not already heard and that there are answers to . If you are looking for a contrived reason not to believe , I am sure you will find what that seems like a good one and you will cling on to it till the day you die and find out that you should have taken God’s offer . You will not check it out and find truth because you don’t want the truth . The Truth( The Bible ) will reveal that you are a sinner and accountable for your sins. Thankfully there is also an answer , a solution for your sins that will grant you a pardon from the penalty of your sin. Those Charlestons you mentioned and other fakes and pretenders will also stand before God and give an account . Unless they also repent , they too will end up in Hell forever. Since you speak of “catholic priests”, where did the Catholic religious organization ever get the idea that you could not serve God unless you took a vow of celibacy? The Bible says something different . ( I Corinthians 7:9; Genesis 2:18)KJB. God can heal and answer prayers but the gift as The Apostles had in terms of The Gift of Healing ,was given to them to authenticate their apostleship. There are no apostles today . Today we have the Word of God and it alone empowered by the Holy Spirit , can do the greatest miracle . The greatest miracle today is when a person become a brand new child of God through faith in Christ . (Acts 20:21; Acts 16:31; I John 5:13; 2 Corinthians 5;17; John 3:3; I Peter 1:23)KJB. Being born again is the greater miracle than any physical healing because with the new birth comes everlasting and abundant life and love .

            There are many professing ” Christians” but among them are wolves in sheep’s clothing and or babies in Christ that have not matured in the LORD and may have fallen prey to strange doctrines that have led them astray . Not everyone that says ” Lord , Lord “, are really true Christians . ” 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” ( Matthew 7:21-23)KJB
            Roger , The Person that looks over me is the same Who created everything and also showed how much He loved me when He came and died for me . LOVE Itself became incarnate in The Person of The LORD Jesus Christ and demonstrated that LOVE in that, ” while I was yet a sinner , Jesus died for me”. Jesus arose from the dead and is now preparing a place and will come again someday . Please don’t be left out . Trust God for those “hard” and or what you might thing are perplexing questions and trust in Him anyway . He is the only One that LOVES you so much that He was willing to suffer to redeem you for Himself and grant you everlasting life and Heaven .

          • Roger Peritone

            Excuse me? You somehow know me well enough to say that I “don’t want the truth”?

            You insult me, and anyone like me (atheist), you disregard any evidence I give for my case, and then you throw bible verses at me with no confirming evidence, and expect me to convert?

            I go by evidence, not insults.

            If you weren’t such a cowardly little bint, I’d challenge you to come over here and tangle with a real bible scholar:
            http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=755325#p755325

            I think you’d find that he’d bring up problems that you have not seen yet.

          • Michael James Cobb

            Very interesting back and forth.

            The core of the problem is that the Bible (all versions as far as I can see) do not provide any evidence, or even suggestion, that they are written by or inspired by anyone other than fallible humans. Power grasping and evil folks too, if it comes to that. So that when one surveys the writings one is struck by the basic banality of them. There is not Lord of the Universe there, just people who are as afraid as we are about coming to grips with the universe and who have constructed some sort of fabric (highly derivative, I might add) to help them cope. They invented (or elaborated upon) a daddy/mommy figure who, if you obey the rules, will keep you safe.

            The arguments about specifics in these books are misguided (no one can possibly take them literally, no one does. No one does because the prisons are not full of bible “literalists”) since such arguments miss the core point: we are looking at a work of fiction. Go ahead, read it and quote something that reflects wisdom that no one knows. Quote something that creates an ineluctable argument that causes the scales to fall from the eyes of non-believers. Find something that stands on it’s own without the need to explain or make excuses for or fall back on the sloppy argument that “you just don’t understand”.

            If the bible were the work of an alien intelligence with the all knowing characteristics that seem to be the profile de jour of the deity, we’d have some nuggets in the texts that present some sort of something that are new and insightful and that speak to the ages.

            Nothing zero zilch. What we have is exactly what we would expect from writers from an agrarian culture whose knowledge extended precisely as far as the next hill. And to make it more we have apologetics. The very existence of which makes my point eloquently.

            Then we have the trendy nature of the bible. The eternal word of god is manifested in the clothing of the current climate, political and social. As one would expect from a pastiche made by many hands over many years, the sum total is a Rorschach. It is a sad bible scholar that cannot make it say what he or she desires. Women priests? Homosexuals in the clergy? Homosexulas NOT cast into everlasting fire? Homosexuals cast into everlasting fire? Everlasting fire? Good acts? Belief? Slaves? Erastianism? Salvation for all? For many? For few? Depends when you lived and who was speaking.

            Nothing consistent, nothing definitive. Just the belief of sad, frightened humans trying to make sense of their existence.

            The core of my argument is that there is clearly nothing whatsoever to argue that the books (in all of their translations and assemblages) that we collectively call the bible are anything more than the works of sad frightened members of a preindustrial, uneducated, primitive society, added to and expounded upon by other of similar characteristics.

            One note on morality. If one does something out of fear or duress ones motives are suspect and there is no honor in the resulting behaviors. This is so self evident that I would not have mentioned it but for the peculiar assertion that those not feeling threatened by a vast alien presence somehow cannot be “moral”, which of course they must certainly be. Certainly more so than those that believe in eternal damnation.

            The absurdity of a creator tormenting his creations throughout eternity will have to await another day for discussion. Though one that this sick notion is enough to write finis to any discussion of a deity.

          • Roger Peritone

            My disqus reply didn’t seem to show up here so I’ll repost it:

            Excuse me? You somehow know me well enough to say that I “don’t want the truth”?

            You insult me, and anyone like me (atheist), you disregard any evidence I give for my case, and then you throw bible verses at me with no confirming evidence, and expect me to convert?

            I go by evidence, not insults.

            If you weren’t such a cowardly little bint, I’d challenge you to come over here and tangle with a real bible scholar:
            http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=755325#p755325

            I think you’d find that he’d bring up problems that you have not seen yet.

          • GibbyD

            I posted sufficient information including mathematical , geological and other scientific information and evidence . I never insulted you . It is just that you took it that way because you must be feeling guilty and know that I am right to say you can’t handle The Truth .

          • Roger Peritone

            Ok. Now this has to be the most arrogant and dishonest thing I’ve read all week:
            ” I never insulted you . It is just that you took it that way because you must be feeling guilty and know that I am right to say you can’t handle The Truth .”So if you make a arrogant, unjustified, and unprovable claim like all atheists just reject the truth, and someone takes offense to that, you assume that it’s GUILT? And that means that you’re right?

            Where is the evidence? Are you a mind-reader?

            What’s to stop me from making some generalization about xians such as: you all fear the idea that there is no god, and you will never live again after you die, and you will never see your loved ones in heaven, and therefore that’s why you people rant against atheists?

            Atheists are people who have grown past that fear perhaps, while xians have not, eh?

            If you get upset at that, it only shows that I’ve exposed your fear and that I’m right.

            Now you may have an idea as to how atheists feel when you make such pronouncements on us.

            As for “scientific” evidence:
            All that young earth nonsense has been shot down years ago:
            http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

            As for things like “scientific information” in the bible? Let’s see. Many of the claims of apologists that the bible is in any way a font of scientific knowledge is bogus. This site, not even an atheist one, shows that:
            http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/bibleandscience.htm

            You have not even bothered to look at, much less refute or even discuss anything that I have posted, including so-called “messianic prophecies” that have all been shot down.

            You are lying. It is YOU who is afraid of the truth. Are you up to the challenge posted from the skeptical community link?

            Put up or shut up, as they say.

          • GibbyD

            “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” ( John 3:18)KJB

          • Roger Peritone

            And…no evidence given, just another bible quote that will mean nothing to those who do not already believe it.

            Yeah. Nice job “witnessing”.

            The offer at the skeptical community is still up.

          • GibbyD

            “At Parbar westward, four at the causeway,and two at Parbar.” ( I Chronicles 26:18 )KJB

          • Roger Peritone

            GibbyD said:
            ” The greatest miracle today is when a person become a brand new child ofGod through faith in Christ . (Acts 20:21; Acts 16:31; I John 5:13; 2 Corinthians 5;17; John 3:3; I Peter 1:23)KJB. Being born again is the greater miracle than any physical healing because with the new birth comes everlasting and abundant life and love .”
            Odd that THAT “miracle” is something that

            –can’t be measured as say, physical healings can

            –can be easily faked (look at all the televangelists out there raking it in from the sheep)

            –is not unique to your religion. There are converts and believers to every religion

          • GibbyD

            *****It can’t be measured the same but it does have dimensions. ” —14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,15Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.” ( Ephesians 3:14-19)KJB. ******A fake might be able to fool a mere man but not God. ” But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” ( I Samuel 16:7)KJB**** Other religions follow dead men . Christians worship and follow a risen Saviour . 12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? “13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” ( I Corinthians 15:12-19)KJB

          • Roger Peritone

            Ok. Paragraphs are your friend. They make your posts easier to read.

            And you just threw out another bunch of bible verses while ignoring all the evidence (or links TO evidence) that the bible is not what it’s cracked up to be.

            Until you actually bother to even look and discuss the evidence, there is no use talking with you.

          • GibbyD

            “8Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?

            9He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

            10He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?

            11The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.” ( Psalm 94:8-11)KJB

            1{To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David the servant of the LORD.} The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

            2For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful.

            3The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise,and to do good.

            4He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil.

            5Thy mercy, O LORD, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds. ( Psalm 36:1-5)KJB

            “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” ( Acts 16:31)KJB

            “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” ( Romans 10:9)KJB

          • Roger Peritone

            At least now your stuff is easier to read now. Too bad that you give nothing to back up your views, just bible verses.

            You do realize that quoting the bible to an atheist has no more effect then quoting the koran to a xian, right?

          • GibbyD

            “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” ( 2 Corinthians 4:4 )KJB

            “1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.”

            ( I John 4:1-6)KJB

            “15Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19We love him, because he first loved us. 20If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”

            ( I John 4:15-21)KJB

          • Roger Peritone

            I don’t even know what point you’re trying to get across now.

          • http://biblicalvision.org Richard Stals

            You are treating the Bible in the exact same way the neo-fundamentalists do (the entire point of the article). The Gospels were not written like some kind of history textbook, they are the narrative account of a portion of the life of Christ from a particular, single view point. In your example, they are describing the event of Judas death from a singular point of view, that is why neither mentions the other aspect of the story (your point 1).

            This is analogous to an event where two witnesses describe a (hypothetical) robbery. One describes the offender coming in holding a gun. The other describes the offender holding an axe. It’s as if it was two entirely different accounts. Are they contradictory? Not if the offender came in holding an axe and a gun. This is exactly how we see the so-called contradiction in Judas’ death explained.

            Your point 2 – Now you are just being silly. How can you deduce from the text of the gospel exactly how the body of Judas fell and what were the exact circumstances of how it came to fall? I can easily think of several scenarios in which a body hanging from a tree comes to fall headlong into the ground.

            As I said before, you are treating an ancient eye-witness account as if it were an academic history book and criticise it for not holding up to your erroneous standard.

          • Roger Peritone

            You said:
            “This is analogous to an event where two witnesses describe a (hypothetical) robbery. One describes the offender coming in holding a gun. The other describes the offender holding an axe. It’s as if it was two entirely different accounts. Are they contradictory? Not if
            the offender came in holding an axe and a gun. This is exactly how we see the so-called contradiction in Judas’ death explained.”
            Typical and old, apologetic ploy. Thing is: Why did one “witness” NOT notice the gun, and the OTHER “witness” NOT notice the axe?

            How is that even possible? How would that play out in a court of law?

            Please note that the fundies are always claiming that their book is “inspired” and others go so far as to say that it’s “without flaw or error”.

            Please. How could such a “perfect” book get such minor details wrong?

            In order to discuss the fallibility of the bible with fundamentalists, one has to treat it as they do so that they can see from their own pointof view whether it’s right or wrong.

            If one doesn’t do that, the fundamentalists won’t pay attention.

            You said:
            “Your point 2 – Now you are just being silly. How can you deduce from the text of the gospel exactly how the body of Judas fell and what were the exact circumstances of how it came to fall?”
            It said that he hung himself.

            “I can easily think of several scenarios in which a body hanging from a tree comes to fall headlong into the ground.”
            Which are? The tree was so high up that the body had time to spin around? What part of the biblical text implies that? Isn’t that what you were criticizing me for?

            Why not mention some of them, instead of just saying that you can? Even more important? Can you make the bible justify what you say?

          • RH

            Why be “born again” when you can just grow up?

          • GibbyD

            Do you mean ” grow up” , grow old , die and end up in Hell ? No , I think I will trust The Saviour , The LORD Jesus instead . “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” ( I Peter 1:23)KJB.

          • Guest

            ooh what one is that? Let me try :D

          • GibbyD

            The Gospels are four accounts of most of the same events . They do not have to include all the details that each presents but they do not contradict . The Gospels each have a different theme emphasized relating to the Person of The LORD Jesus Christ . Matthew , Mark, Luke , John . King , Servant , Man and God .

          • Pixie5

            You obviously did not read my post. Yes I aware that the gospels were written for different audiences. But we are not talking about them just not including details, but rather DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS. Read my post this time.

          • GibbyD

            not different audiences but rather emphasizing different themes about The LORD Jesus . There are not errors or ” direct contradictions”.

          • Pixie5

            GibbyD…How do you explain that in Luke the ascension happen the day of the Jesus’s resurrection but Acts says that it happened 40 days later in a completely different location?

            From Luke 1 (I recommend you read the entire chapter to verify that these things all were said to happen on the day of the resurrection):

            13Now that same day {of the resurrection] two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven milesa from Jerusalem. 14They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16but they were kept from recognizing him…

            The Ascension of Jesus

            50When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.”

            From Acts 1

            “1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God….

            “6Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

            7He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

            9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.”

          • GibbyD

            It was not the same day and it never said it was . Again , the 40 days not being mentioned , does not mean they did not happen .

          • GibbyD

            18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?—- ( “These days” can speak of several days later addressing things that occurred before, meaning they were asking , ” you don’t understand today what happened back then?)

            21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.—-( this could mean that there are at least an additional three days added since the day of the resurrection , not the Crucifixion . ” Since these things were done”, could easily include The Resurrection and additional events that relate to it )

            27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.—-( Jesus could not have “expounded” all those things in just a few moments, a few hours or even a few days . There were many prophets and about 365 prophecies concerning Jesus alone . When one expounds on a Scripture , he goes into detail and gives more than just the reading of the text. It would take several days to cover everything that is contained in ALL The Scriptures concerning Jesus Christ . He is in all those prophecies. All the prophets from Moses to John The Baptist . Yes , John the Baptist was the last old testament prophets . )

            33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, —( Here are more days not hours. . They did not sprint back on modern roads that distance even if it may have been just under seven miles . The geography and speed of their travel was not noted . )

            ****Now concerning your assertion that the Ascension was recorded as being in, “Completely different locations “,A ” Sabbath’s day’s journey ” is considered to be seven and a half furlongs ( about 3000 feet , according to Josephus . John 11:18 tells us that “Bethany”( Luke 24:50) was “fifteen furlongs” ( a little over one and a half miles ) from Jerusalem , twice the distance of a legitimate “Sabbath Day’s journey”. but Luke 24:50 does not say that Jesus led the disciples “to Bethany”, but ” as far as to Bethany “. The expression ” as far as to ” implies that Jesus did not go into the village, but simply within reach of it’s suburbs. According to numbers 35:5, the suburbs of the city went out 3000 -3500 feet from the city wall . Since Bethany was located on “the mount of Olives ” ( Luke 19:29), there is no contradiction between the Luke account of the ascension and the Acts account . Jesus and the disciples traveled ” a sabbath day’s journey’ on “the mount of Olives,” which brought them to the outer limits of the suburbs of Bethany .

          • Matt

            Pixie5, I don’t want to get in the middle of the beautiful thing you and GibbyD have going here, I just want to recommend a few resources. The Easter Enigma by John Wenham is an excellent resource and almost every objection you raised is answered there. He takes you through the geography of Jerusalem which goes a long way to explain where the disciples were after Jesus’ arrest. What perspective each gospel is written from, etc. Another great resource is Tim McGrew, you can youtube many of his lectures. His knowledge of ancient Rome (and Judea) through historians like Josephus, Tacitus and others is mind boggling. There are other resources, but between those two, I found myself just checking off the list of what you wrote above what very plausible explanations are rooted in understanding both the history and literary styles of that day.

            Your objection over the ascension is a good example. Acts is essentially Luke Part 2, it was written by Luke (sources as early as 90 – 95AD name his as the author). Near the end of what we call “the book of Luke” he starts compressing time. This is for the very practical reason that he didn’t write in “book” format, but on a scroll. Scrolls back then came in lengths of about 25 ft, any more than that and they start getting too bulky to carry around. Luke and Acts are two of the longest books in the NT, a good assumption (yes it is an assumption, but a plausible one) is Luke used every bit of that 25 ft. And when you’re running out of room you can’t simply add another page, so you start compressing, which is what we see in the last chapter (what we call chapter 24). In his “sequel”, Luke expands what he compressed in his previous writing and tells us it happened over 40 days. And Bethany is (was) a little village on the southeast slope of the Mount of Olives, no contradiction there.

            Hope that helps, and I would encourage you to look up those resources, I’ve approached contradictions with a critical mind and haven’t found one yet that doesn’t have a plausible explanation.

          • Pixie5

            Thank you for your response and the resources. Your take on this is interesting, although it seems like if Luke wanted to he could clearly state that he was “compressing time.” And yes I know both books are thought to be from the same author, although there is no proof of that.

            I acknowledge the confusion regarding the location of where he ascended as apparently Bethany was on the Mount of Olives.

          • Matt

            I really geek out about history, so i just wanted to respond quickly to the proof of Luke writing Acts.

            If you’re looking for a scrap of papyrus that says, “I, Luke, am the author of Acts” then you are correct, no such scrap of papyrus exists. But…

            Eusebius, writing the first “church history” in about 320 writes “Luke, an Antiochene by birth and a physician by profession, was long a companion of Paul and was closely associated with the other apostles. In two divinely inspired books, the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, he has left us…” (Book 3)

            “But Matt” you might say, “that’s 250 years from the events, surely that’s not reliable”

            OK, let’s go back a little further.

            The Muratorian Fragment (around 170) has this to say about Acts: “Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence” (there’s several “we” passages where the author is writing in first person narrative)

            There is also Ireneaus writing around the same time that verifies Luke as the author. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, all very early church sources that put Luke as the author of Acts. As far as I know there isn’t really any scholars that dispute the validity of these writings (stress on “as far as I know”, I’ve read quite a few scholars on this, but not everyone)

            That’s just externally. Internally is a whole other ball game with textual analysis that points to Luke.

            Like I said, I’m a history nerd and authorship of the gospels is something I’ve really dug into for a while, so I perked up when you mentioned that.

          • GibbyD

            and is there any other document of professing recorded history that has more support in terms of numbers of manuscripts , than the Bible ?

          • Matt

            GibbyD, please note that it is impossible to read tone of voice on a blog comment, I sincerely don’t mean to be sarcastic or disrespectful. After reading many of your comments I wonder if the bible, the text itself, has become more important than the God communicating to us through that bible, becoming an idol. Anything, even good things (especially good things because you don’t see it coming), can become idols. The law, the Pentatech, the very words of Moses had become an idol to the Pharisees, they could quote it forwards and backwards, and the harshest words of Jesus were for them.
            Just something to think, ponder, pray about. In the meantime, breathe, relax, turn the computer off and go out and laugh with friends, enjoy the world God gave us, it goes beyond this blog and remember you’re not alone, the fight isn’t soley on your shoulders.
            God bless

          • GibbyD

            I agree with you concerning enjoying all that God has blessed us with . He made all these things for us to enjoy and we should be thankful and grateful . That aside , what is impossible , is that we can separate the God of The Bible , His Word , from The Bible Itself. The LORD Jesus chided and rebuked The Pharisees because they did not, nor would not, recognize The One those Scriptures spoke about . He did not rebuke them for loving The Scriptures , He rebuked them for not seeing that He was the One those Scriptures spoke about . Also , by their “traditions” they had made the Word of God of none effect . “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” ( Mark 7:13)KJB. If they really were studying those Scriptures mixing it with the faith that would have made it beneficial , they may have been ready and receptive when the God they were reading about , LOOKED THEM RIGHT IN THEIR EYES. “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” ( Hebrews 4:2)KJB. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” ( John 5:39)KJB.

            Without Final Authority , all you have are everyone’s opinion as to what God hath said . I believe God was able to preserve His Word for us today as He had promised . –”The words of the LORD are pure words: assilver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” ( Psalm 12:6,7)KJB

            I also do not hold to “The Scriptures Alone” but rather , ” The Scriptures Supreme” . God bless you too

      • GibbyD

        this is for Muslims and i do not agree with some of the beliefs of the sources for this collection of places to find the responses and answers but there is enough listed here to get you started on your way to find them. I do not find any errors in the King James Bible . You can trust it 100% to be the Final Authority on what God’s Word is .http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/

        • GibbyD

          I noticed some of those listed are no longer available and have been either moved to a new web site address or added to another site . carm.org is thorough but they do not hold as i do to the KJB. Carm.org does though seem to have a very good list and has other resources that address theology and cults .

  • Greg Bester

    Hahaha, this is hilarious!

  • http://restoredtograce.com Nate

    Wow. This post is funny, but it’s a bit scary because it’s not as far-fetched as we’d like. Yay for fundamentalism!

  • Stevie

    Wow. Using satire to ridicule someone else doesn’t seem like something a “Christian” should do.

    • Kelly Reimer

      Exactly!

      • Bruce Miller

        I agree. Ridiculing God, even in satire, dishonors Him. You need to ask for God’s and Ken Ham’s forgiveness.

        • Andrew Watson

          I don’t think ridiculing God and ridiculing Ken Hamm are the same thing. Both Jesus and Paul also ridiculed and made fun of their opponents. (Paul called his “dogs”, look up “brood of vipers” in original language to see what it actually means)

  • Ross

    tee hee hee!

    Some people don’t seem to have a sense of humour in Evangelicalism. Is it banned in Leviticus, or Deuteronomy?

    • Stephen W

      ’tis an abomination!

    • http://google.com/+MarkTraphagen Mark Traphagen

      Leviticus bans it. Deutoronmy says it’s OK.

      • Ross

        hee hee hee :-) :-).

  • Ashes Downs

    Had me on the hook until the very end! Damned funny ! Plus ten points..

  • Robert

    This is silly.

  • Art Bauer

    You are so hypocritical and apparently neither listen or ascribe to the whole Word of God! “Hide My Word in your heart that you might NOT sin against ME” saith the Lord!

  • Baloc

    Shouldn’t this blog be categorized under “Progressive Christian” instead of Evangelical?

  • Anne

    Funniest thing I’ve read all week. Thanks. :)

  • http://www.theelephantsdebt.com/ Ryan Mahoney

    :D

  • Josh de Keijzer

    Some of the comments are even funnier than the blogpost itself. A little disconcerting, though, that the people writing those funny comments are not even willing to concede Enns’ point.

  • Robert

    Peter I have one quick question and then one comment. First, aren’t you an Arminian/quasi-Arminian in your soteriology? Second, and this is just a warning: Don’t get into a exegetical war with John MacArthur; you might be able to poke fun at Ken Ham and get away with it, but MacArthur will blow your head clean off.

    • Guest

      The hyperbole of an overstimulated teenager…boring.

    • Andrew Dowling

      LOL . . .I think Peter can handle himself fine vs someone who advocates nouthetic counseling as opposed to mainstream psychiatry.

      • Robert

        You think Peter Enns would defeat John MacArthur in an exegetical war?!?

        You obviously know very little about John MacArthur. Plus, the doctrine of recent creation is exegetically air-tight; the only way you can get around it is by pseudo-exegesis.

        Moreover, you obviously no very little about the sufficiency of Scripture if you would opt for mainstream psychiatry over the infallible word of God.

        Last thing, the reason I asked if he was an Arminian is because I can’t fathom a real Reformer teaching these things–

        “But if we are frightened from it by their impudence, all the principal articles of the faith must be concealed, for there is scarcely one of them which such persons as these leave unviolated by blasphemy. The refractory mind will discover as much insolence, on hearing that there are three persons in the Divine essence, as on being told, that when God created man, He foresaw what would happen concerning him. Nor will they refrain from derision on being informed that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world. They will ask why the power of God was so long idle and asleep. Nothing can be advanced which they will not endeavor to ridicule. Must we, in order to check these sacrileges, say nothing of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit, or pass over in silence the creation of the world? In this instance, and every other, ‘the truth of God is too powerful’ to dread the detraction of impious men.”-John Calvin

        I can guarantee you that if Calvin was alive today he would fully adhere to recent creation simply because ‘the truth of God is too powerful to dread the detraction of impious men.’

        • John

          Chuckle. Well played, sir. People are having way to much fun with this thread :-)

  • http://www.swordcrossrocket.com swordcrossrocket

    Trying a bit too hard here, I think.

  • Ross

    Unfortunately, being British, I’ve not quite got this issue right yet. Surely this “Ken Ham” person is the satire, there cannot really be a real person like this? In fact I can’t tell what is satire in this whole post and all the replies. It all seems like satire, or is it irony (with the “r” pronounced!)

    • Pixie5

      He is a real person and yes this is satire. He is a creationist and believes in the inerrancy of the bible, but his arguments are ridiculous, like saying that fire-breathing dragons really existed. Go to his website and witness the loony-ness. Also you might want to google the Ham/Nye debate on creationism
      http://www.answersingenesis.com

      • Ross

        I may have been using a wee bit of irony there, but for those of us “over here” we could probably visit his website and hope the whole lot was satire. The idea that large amounts of people actually “believe” this is too much of a joke.

        • Pixie5

          I know, thanks to these yahoos Americans are the laughing stock of the world.

  • http://daveyorksgodtalk.blogspot.com/ daveyork7

    I think that like the gentleman over at virtue online you should identify your post as a satire either in or beneath the title lest others be mislead.

  • Andrew Dowling

    I can’t believe people actually follow the KJV-only mantra . . .it’s frankly one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of. There is absolutely no rational or logical reason to hold that position, except that you were raised in that culture and refuse to think for yourself/grow up.

    • Pixie5

      Some people are uncomfortable with uncertainty. And yes it is not rational. It is based on emotion, primarily the fear of being wrong and the perceived consequences of being wrong (hell).

      I notice that attitude among cults (and no I am not saying Christianity is a cult). I saw a documentary they had a rare look at a cult and actually talked with some of the members. They believed their leader was Jesus reincarnated. One woman said that the reason she joined the cult was that no one could tell her how to be saved so she kept searching until she found the cult.

      Well it is very unlikely that she did not know the traditional way of Christian salvation. So something else was in play there. She was afraid of being misled so she joined the cult in order to be absolutely sure. She traded in her thinking cap and let someone else take over,

      Although most conservative Christians are not in cults I often see the same rigid thinking patterns and really many do have a cultic devotion to the KJV Bible. Because if they can’t be sure of translation then they believe that they can’t be sure of anything. Biblio-idolatry taken to the extreme.

      God is not in a book.

  • Guest

    Checking In

  • Matthew Garnett

    I’ll agree that Ken Ham can be a polemic goof ball. However, I find Enns
    post here enormously unhelpful and a juvenile attack that actually fuels
    what he claims to despise (i.e. polemics of the ilk of Ken Ham). Enns
    surely has the gravitas to challenge Ham to a legitimate debate. This
    kind of satire only serves to further polarize the parties germane to
    the discussion.

    • Lars

      Ordinarily, I would never question Pete’s gravitas, especially on his own blog. But after gratuitously tagging this post as ‘satire’ I can’t help but wonder if he’s recently undergone a polemictomy.

      • peteenns

        My insurance won’t cover it.

      • Matthew Garnett

        You ever go to the bar and wake up the next morning saying to yourself, “Oh brother! I probably shouldn’t have done that!” I do stand by my remarks but I certainly should have nuanced them more effectively. In an effort to combat “polemics” I may have shot myself in the foot here.

  • http://anaquaduck.blogspot.com.au/ an aquaduck

    Are you trying to say Ham is like Dawkins ?

    • John

      Viaduct?

      • http://anaquaduck.blogspot.com.au/ an aquaduck

        גשר

  • Frank

    Good article, Pete. The exegesis was informative for me. Sometime it takes a satire to get people’s attention. The folks I sent this article out to actually read it. Jonah was probably a satire.

  • Michael James Cobb

    Very interesting back and forth.

    The core of the problem is that the Bible (all versions as far as I can see) do not provide any evidence, or even suggestion, that they are written by or inspired by anyone other than fallible humans. Power grasping and evil folks too, if it comes to that. So that when one surveys the writings one is struck by the basic banality of them. There is not Lord of the Universe there, just people who are as afraid as we are about coming to grips with the universe and who have constructed some sort of fabric (highly derivative, I might add) to help them cope. They invented (or elaborated upon) a daddy/mommy figure who, if you obey the rules, will keep you safe.

    The arguments about specifics in these books are misguided (no one can possibly take them literally, no one does. No one does because the prisons are not full of bible “literalists”) since such arguments miss the core point: we are looking at a work of fiction. Go ahead, read it and quote something that reflects wisdom that no one knows. Quote something that creates an ineluctable argument that causes the scales to fall from the eyes of non-believers. Find something that stands on it’s own without the need to explain or make excuses for or fall back on the sloppy argument that “you just don’t understand”.

    If the bible were the work of an alien intelligence with the all knowing characteristics that seem to be the profile de jour of the deity, we’d have some nuggets in the texts that present some sort of something that are new and insightful and that speak to the ages.

    Nothing zero zilch. What we have is exactly what we would expect from writers from an agrarian culture whose knowledge extended precisely as far as the next hill. And to make it more we have apologetics. The very existence of which makes my point eloquently.

    Then we have the trendy nature of the bible. The eternal word of god is manifested in the clothing of the current climate, political and social. As one would expect from a pastiche made by many hands over many years, the sum total is a Rorschach. It is a sad bible scholar that cannot make it say what he or she desires. Women priests? Homosexuals in the clergy? Homosexulas NOT cast into everlasting fire? Homosexuals cast into everlasting fire? Everlasting fire? Good acts? Belief? Slaves? Erastianism? Salvation for all? For many? For few? Depends when you lived and who was speaking.

    Nothing consistent, nothing definitive. Just the belief of sad, frightened humans trying to make sense of their existence.

    The core of my argument is that there is clearly nothing whatsoever to argue that the books (in all of their translations and assemblages) that we collectively call the bible are anything more than the works of sad frightened members of a preindustrial, uneducated, primitive society, added to and expounded upon by other of similar characteristics.

    One note on morality. If one does something out of fear or duress ones motives are suspect and there is no honor in the resulting behaviors. This is so self evident that I would not have mentioned it but for the peculiar assertion that those not feeling threatened by a vast alien presence somehow cannot be “moral”, which of course they must certainly be. Certainly more so than those that believe in eternal damnation.

    The absurdity of a creator tormenting his creations throughout eternity will have to await another day for discussion. Though one that this sick notion is enough to write finis to any discussion of a deity.

    • Lucius

      Your understanding of Scripture is misguided and underdeveloped. The “nuggets” are there, in the first four verses of the book in fact. 137 “..would be one of those numbers you’d signal to these aliens…” – Prof. L. Eaves, Physicist. Seek and you shall find.

      • Roger Peritone

        So: Which are the “nuggets” and which can be discarded? What about 2 Timothy 3:16?

        • Lucius

          What about it? I’m not talking about surface content or direct literal interpretations of sentences. I’m not saying “believe because it tells you to,” I’m not telling anyone to believe anything. I’m simply saying that the ‘nuggets’ do indeed exist; but they are nuggets, not red flags. They are not given, they are presented. It is up to the reader to discover their meaning, and he that is without the key simply does not see.

          The true gems are only seen in the original Hebrew, you will likely not find them in the KJV. But if you’re looking for ancient knowledge of Trigonometry or Phi, you need only examine Rev. 13:18-19 or Genesis 6:16.

          • Roger Peritone

            Uh huh. The “original Hebrew”. How do you know? Have you read it??

            As for “direct literal interpretations or surface context”, no.

            I’m talking about the fact that according to that verse, the entire bible is given by god.

            Meaning that you have to take the whole thing in, and not just “nuggets”.

            So if any part of it is shown to be wrong, you’re in trouble.

          • Lucius

            Of course, why would I say that if I have never seen or read it? Anyone that truly wishes to understand it Must study it in its original language. It’s like reading Dante in English, it’s not the same. You are being presumptuous, and frankly I don’t really care what you are talking about because you have strayed from the original usage of this word. Perhaps you can quote me when I sweepingly said, “Every word of The Bible is directly inspired by God.” I didn’t say that. I said there are ‘nuggets’ – ie Pieces of evidence suggesting that there is more to the book than what people on this hyper-literalist website seem to think.

  • Lucius

    “Just look at the laws. In Exodus God says to roast the Passover lamb and definitely not boil it. In Deuteronomy God says to boil it. In Chronicles God says to roast and boil the Passover meat…”

    “Put the matter into a moist fire, therefore, and cause it to boil, in order that its heat may be augmented…”

    “…by means of its construction, also, and fiery redness, it is burned.”

    – Hermes

    God was not talking about mutton. “Cast not pearls before swine,” so saith Scripture: it is not literal and it is not literally comprehensible..

    So long as men continue to view The Book in a historical sense, men will completely fail to understand it.

    • Michael James Cobb

      The problems are way beyond recipes.

      Do you really think that there is any evidence of any sort of thinking that was beyond that of the writers of the bibles? I’d love to see it. And emailing me snippy replies hardy advances your cause.

      • Lucius

        It’s not a “recipe,” this just shows how trapped in the literal you really are. It’s not about eating a lamb or cooking it properly in the eyes of God, the Lamb in scripture is not an actual physical lamb.

        Emailing you snippy replies? I simply stated that your understanding of scripture is flawed.

        “I’d love to see it.” In all likelihood, you actually wouldn’t; because you don’t want it to be there. Therefore it’s not there. I told you what to look for and where, if you truly want to see it you will find a way. I am not attempting to advance any cause.

        • Roger Peritone

          “If you truly want to see it you will find a way”.

          I think that sums up apologetics right there.

          How do you consistently and accurately know which parts of the bible to take as literal and which as metaphor?

          • Lucius

            I don’t take any of it literally. And I’m not an apologetic.

          • Roger Peritone

            Oh? Ah, Ok. I may have then misunderstood. I guess the word “nuggets” should have been a hint.

            Never mind. (head-desk)

          • Lucius

            Haha quite alright. :D

  • Donna

    Yep, I totally expect this type of journalism from the progressive liberal left. Way
    to to guys shows your stupidity. Ken Ham upholds the authority and inerrant Word of God.

    • Michael James Cobb

      What is “inerrant” in your mind? Anything deep? Anything aside from joyously praising? Is that what you think an advanced intelligence wants, praise? Really?

    • Roger Peritone

      If that was truly the case, he’d be a geocentrist as well.

      • Jeremiah Iype

        Why?

    • Daniel Webb

      Ha. Ken Ham upholds the authority and inerrant Word of God (his interpretation of it).

    • diogeneslamp0

      “Yep, I totally expect this type of journalism from the progressive liberal left.”

      Progrssive liberal left. When you have to use three near-synonymous adjectives, believing in their awesome power to provoke fear terror horror, you show that you’re losing failing defeated in any arguments about evidence proof reality.

  • Vincent ADM

    Due to Poe’s Law, I wasn’t sure at first whether this was satire, or some idiocy Ham actually said.

    • axelbeingcivil

      Took me a moment, too.

  • Rosa Rubicondior

    Funny and a point well made but actually the Bible is uncharacteristically UNambiguous on the matter of roasting the Passover lamb as each of those verses explicitly instruct.

    • peteenns

      Not in Hebrew.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X