"The bible test" Answered.

[Drich]

The point of the FFRF Bible Quiz was to help people realize what outrageous and laughable content is to be found in the Bible. No one denies that there is some good content, some excellent exhortations to moral behavior. However, so much is immoral and superstitious that no one should give the Bible a blanket endorsement as the Word of a just and loving God.

If you're looking to the bible as a source of 'morality' then you do not understand the concept. That is why one can find moral and immoral examples in it. If you are looking for an explaination of morality as the bible identifies it see me thread on man's morality.

In addition to the answers found in the Bible Quiz, here are a few more specimens to show how detestable and sometimes silly can be the instructions attributed to God.

Before we move on past the bible quiz you must first either acknoweledge my findings or refute them.

Now kill all the boys [among the captive Midianites]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:17-18) No matter what fundamentalists may claim, the virgins were not spared to help with cooking and sewing.

Do not spare them [the Amalekites] put to death men and women, children and infants [nursing babies], cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1 Samuel 15:3)

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

The punishment attached to the First Commandment: "Even your brother or your son or your daughter or the wife you love or your closest friend may secretly encourage you to worship other gods, gods that you and your ancestors have never worshiped. Some of them may encourage you to worship the gods of the people who live near you or the gods of those who live far away. But do not let any of them persuade you; do not even listen to them. Show them no mercy or pity, and do not protect them. Kill them! Be the first to stone them, and then let everyone else stone them too. Stone them to death! They tried to lead you away from the Lord your God, who rescued you from Egypt, where you were slaves. Then all the people of Israel will hear what happened; they will be afraid, and no one will ever again do such an evil thing." (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)

Death penalty for changing your religion. Cutting off hands. Making war on women and children. Who does all this remind you of? The Taliban? Al Qaeda? No group that I would want to be associated with.

And to move from the grisly to the ludicrous: "Take the other ram, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head. Slaughter it, take some of its blood and put it on the lobes of the right ears of Aaron and his sons, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet. Then splash blood against the sides of the altar. And take some blood from the altar and some of the anointing oil and sprinkle it on Aaron and his garments and on his sons and their garments. Then he and his sons and their garments will be consecrated." (Exodus 29:19-21) As Robert Ingersoll said, if you saw some South Sea Islanders going through a ritual like that, you could hardly keep yourself from laughing.

All of these type instances have already been discussed in my morality thread.

I can understand how many people can endorse the Bible without reading it. They've always been told that it is of divine origin. As Bill Maher says, for most Christians, it's like clicking the Agree button on a software license without reading it.

What makes you think I have not read or know of these acts?

I can also understand how some people can actually read over this detestable garbage without it registering. I can understand because I did it myself before I was in the ministry. As I say now, I read with my mind on cruise control. Large parts of the Old Testament are desperately boring, and there is a tendency to read fast, skimming without most of the content sinking in.

Read, accepted, Doctrinal changes made accordingly. I have absolutly no conflict between God and Righteousness.

I can't understand how, once it is brought to their attention, fundamentalists can attempt to defend the indefensible, putting themselves through the most pathetic mental contortions. I don't think that deep down they even believe what they are saying, but the idea of letting go of their Bible is too scary for them to contemplate.

Because you and people like you (Bill Mahar) can't get past your own personal understanding of morality/Righteousness. Or as Christ identifies it self righteousness.

Even more so, I can't understand how learned scholars can carefully translate and study this material without retching. For instance, how could the committee doing the New International Version say after translating those passages, that they "were united in their committment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's word in written form"?

maybe you should ask a question of one of those people, rather than assume.

---

Good job Drich, they're afraid to take you on, they beg for answers and when you give them answers they run and hide just like scripture described over 2000+ years ago. They are living proof of prophecy.

GC

Thank you.

You will notice a personal insult heavy lead in like on this on any thread when the website they get this crap from doesn't tell them what to think when someone challenges and defeats the content they were all so eagerly willing to champion. It's like Bill Marah says: "They don't really read this stuff (if they do they don't understand it) It's like clicking the agree button at the bottom of a software agreement form."

Or so I'm told that what he said.. (I'm not really a fan of people like that.)

---

That's not true at all, the distinction is completely arbitrary. You can make that argument for some of the animals, but not for all. For instance - Camels, Badgers, Hares, a whole list of perfectly sanitary birds, etc.

Someone else though that too. A deeper explaination starts on post 17. I will agree my answer does not conform to the typical knee jerk christian response.

The passage of the rich young man is one of my favourites in the Bible.

The answer in the quiz is completely wrong and out of context, and I shall prove it.

• Just then someone came up and asked Him, “Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?”
  
  “Why do you ask Me about what is good?” He said to him. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

The answer is "keep the commandments", NOT "sell all of your possessions and give the money to the poor."

What Jesus says is this: “If you want to be perfect,” Jesus said to him, “go, sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”

Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor and you will have: treasure in heaven (in addition to the already promised eternal life).

This is a perfect example of the new covenant promise vs the old. In order to enter live you had to "keep the commandments", described by Peter in Acts 15 as "a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?"

Then how can we keep God's commandments if this is a 'yoke none of us have been able to bear?'

---

Good job Drich, they're afraid to take you on, they beg for answers and when you give them answers they run and hide just like scripture described over 2000+ years ago. They are living proof of prophecy.

GC

Oh lol. Good job Drich for getting your ass handed to you by having your answers torn to shreds. I see plenty of rebuttals and not much running and hiding. Also I missed the bit in the bible about internet cock sparring sessions over 2000+ years ago.

sour grapes much, or are you just given over to delusion?

Show me one example of someone here who has taken on and challenged more than 3 of my answers. let alone refuted them? How then in your estimation has my 'ass been handed to me' exactly?

-or did you simply mistake me taking the weekend to spend with my family as a sign of defeat?

I guess while the cat's away...

---

Good job Drich, they're afraid to take you on, they beg for answers and when you give them answers they run and hide just like scripture described over 2000+ years ago. They are living proof of prophecy.

GC

So why hasn't Drich the Giant Killer responded to my latest post, where I pointed out that much of the Old Testament reads like a manual for the Taliban?

Here is 16 pages of back and fourth discussion on that very topic.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-22249.html

[max-greece]

Show me one example of someone here who has taken on and challenged more than 3 of my answers. let alone refuted them? How then in your estimation has my 'ass been handed to me' exactly?

You refused to address my post because of the quotes. You were nailed.

[Drich]

Show me one example of someone here who has taken on and challenged more than 3 of my answers. let alone refuted them? How then in your estimation has my 'ass been handed to me' exactly?

You refused to address my post because of the quotes. You were nailed.

I did not even read your post because it reads like something my grandmother would post if she could figure out how to get on line. Maybe present your ideas/arguement within the accepted norms of this forum and I would be happy to read and consider your work. But, again if you are afraid to have it even read by me then just keep barking on your side of the fence. maybe your peers will rally behind you anyway.

[Aractus]

---

That's not true at all, the distinction is completely arbitrary. You can make that argument for some of the animals, but not for all. For instance - Camels, Badgers, Hares, a whole list of perfectly sanitary birds, etc.

---

Someone else though that too. A deeper explaination starts on post 17. I will agree my answer does not conform to the typical knee jerk christian response.

You're wrong, Dirch, just like you're wrong about many things. The commandments God give regarding food and clothing, etc, are simply based on His commandments, and His desire that his chosen people are distinguish themselves, but also will follow his commands. Why can you eat Locusts and not other insects? Why can't you eat perfectly healthy birds? You have no answer for this.

Also, if it really is true that God gave the commands purely for health reasons - then why give the command "you shall not put on a garment made of two kinds of material" (Lev 19:19)? Is that also meant to have a health benefit - and if so why do we wear blended fabrics all the time today?

Then how can we keep God's commandments if this is a 'yoke none of us have been able to bear?'

You can keep the commands but you cannot be justified by them. This is a running theme through the whole of the New Testament that is repeated by almost every author.

---

You refused to address my post because of the quotes. You were nailed.

I'm going to have to agree with Drich on this one, I didn't read your post either because you formatted it wrong. If you want people to read your posts then don't post the contents within a quote of somebody else!

[Drich]

Someone else though that too. A deeper explaination starts on post 17. I will agree my answer does not conform to the typical knee jerk christian response.

You're wrong, Dirch, just like you're wrong about many things. The commandments God give regarding food and clothing, etc, are simply based on His commandments, and His desire that his chosen people are distinguish themselves, but also will follow his commands.

is this a ya-huh, nut-huh thing or do you have proof to support your assertion? (Questions are not proof in what you say, they are proof that you don't know.) that sounds like a fortune cookie saying.

Why can you eat Locusts and not other insects?
The Torah does not say they can not eat other insects it says in the parshat shemini (lev 9:1-11:47)
"Every flying insect that uses four legs for walking shall be avoided by you. The only flying insects with four walking legs you may eat are those with knees extending above their feet, [using these longer legs] to hop on the ground. Among these you may only eat members of the red locust family, the yellow locust family, the spotted gray locust family and the white locust family. All other flying insects with four feet [for walking] must be avoided by you."

Why can't you eat perfectly healthy birds? You have no answer for this.

first the obvious you have absolutely no idea if all birds were healthy back then. Neither did they.

In truth what made an animal 'unclean' was its diet, it's ability to contract and transmit any serious diseases to people, and it's self life. If a bird was considered unclean if you knew the specific species we could look at those three categories and find something if you like.

I can tell you now that the primary reason locus were editable and birds were not was diet. Locus eat plant matter while other bugs are scavengers. They eat the dead amongst other unclean things. Birds on the other hand even the one who aren't scavengers still eat the bugs who are. Scavengers are more susceptible to disease than grazers.

Also, if it really is true that God gave the commands purely for health reasons - then why give the command "you shall not put on a garment made of two kinds of material"

you do understand my argument pertains to dietary law correct? People don't generally eat fabric.

(Lev 19:19)? Is that also meant to have a health benefit - and if so why do we wear blended fabrics all the time today?

for the same reason we eat bacon and do not eat locus. We are not Old Testament Jews we are not bound to the law as a means to righteousness.

You can keep the commands but you cannot be justified by them. This is a running theme through the whole of the New Testament that is repeated by almost every author.

someone should have told paul that because he seems to think differently.
Romans 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not. I am so human. Sin rules me as if I were its slave. 15 I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the evil I hate. 16 And if I don’t want to do what I do, that means I agree that the law is good. 17 But I am not really the one doing the evil. It is sin living in me that does it. 18 Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is not spiritual. I want to do what is good, but I don’t do it. 19 I don’t do the good that I want to do. I do the evil that I don’t want to do. 20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, then I am not really the one doing it. It is the sin living in me that does it.

21 So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. 22 In my mind I am happy with God’s law. 23 But I see another law working in my body. That law makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and that law makes me its prisoner. 24 What a miserable person I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death? 25 I thank God for his salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So in my mind I am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful self I am a slave to the law of sin.

...that said keep in mind paul did write 2/3's of the nt. Not to mention what Christ had to say on the subject. (One had to be more righteous than the Pharisees to enter heaven) in other words more righteous/moral than men who scrutinize every aspect of their lives to ensure their morality..) remember what Jesus called this effort in morality this pursuit of righteousness? Self righteousness. Why? Because as He rightly said only God is Good. Therefore we need a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness/morality that comes with following the law.

[Minimalist]

I did not even read your post because it reads like something my grandmother would post if she could figure out how to get on line.

Drippy, your posts are something like my ass would post if it could figure out how to get on line.

[Aractus]

...that said keep in mind paul did write 2/3's of the nt.

No he didn't. Paul didn't write anywhere near 2/3rds of the text, he didn't even write anywhere near 1/3rd of the text! He wrote 23.5% of the text in 13 epistles. Luke wrote 2 books totalling 27.5% of the New Testament - ergo he wrote more than Paul did.

As I just said to you, you don't know your facts.

[MindForgedManacle]

I have an active 14 page discussion going on this very topic..
http://atheistforums.org/thread-22249.html

In which you've been refuted repeatedly, and seemed to have stopped responding to me.

[Lemonvariable72]

Drippy your op demonstrates aptly why Christianity is a joke.

[max-greece]

The 'bible test.' http://ffrf.org/legacy/quiz/bquiz.php as per the other two threads on this subject.

You made a right abortion of this one Drichy

1. What is the last of the Ten Commandments?
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Ignoring the point that the 10 commandments are restated, differently. Also ignoring that this is the most useless instruction ever given. Thought crime.

2. What is the penalty for working on the Sabbath?
The penality for Breaking Any of the commandments was death. That was why Christ died on the cross. The 'good moral people' who wrote this test look deceive by isolating one commandment over the others.

No its just illustrates how mad the commandments are.

3. What is God's name?
trick question. God does not have just one name as the question implies.
These are the formal names of God and their meanings.
http://www.gotquestions.org/names-of-God.html

Not a trick question but not a complete answer. One of his names is jealousy and that's no good name for a supposedly perfect being who suffers badly from it (and wroth, pride and vanity).

4. How should parents treat a stubborn and rebellious son?
This question is also misleading. Because the answer it provides questions for was meant to only be answered from an Old testament Jewish perspective. Christians are to let their 'rebellious sons' leave as per the parable of the prodigal son Jesus himself told.

Nonsense. A parable (that tries to sell deathbad conversion) does not over-rule a commandment.

5. What happens if you are not a virgin on your wedding night?
again trick question. no one in the Old Testament nor the New testament HAD to be a virgin. There are many examples of people marrying without consenquence that were not virgins. This question leads one to believe one Had to be a virgin. This was not true unless (in the OT) one claimes to be or was repersented as a virgin.

On the one hand - remember this answer for when we get to the incest / rape question later. On the other the law was the law - if a spouse chose not to tell that's not the point - although you could argue they were aiding and abetting.

6. What does the bible say about witches?
another trick question. This question is framed in such away as to mean there is only one answer.
Jews were commanded to not allow a witch to live. In Christianity there are examples of 'witches/sorcers' were converted to the faith

Its not a trick question although the answer was not complete.

7. Which of these foods does the bible expressly permit you to eat?
This question narrows the field to only allow for locus to be permitted as food. when in truth any animal who grazed was acceptiable food while scavengers (pigs and shell fish) were forbidden. Without refrigeration these 'meats' spoil 3 times faster and are exposed/lthe animal ive in disease, filth, rot and death. Where animals who's primary food was green grass tended to be cleaner, and safer for the community.

So locust was the correct answer, not a problem then. As for the rest of your answer - and they had refrigeration in the early days of the Christian church when the dietary laws were abandoned?

8. When the Israelites conquered the Midianites, what part of the spoils of war was given to the priest as "the Lord's tribute"?
God took .02% of the 16,000 virgins left of the Midianites. One should ask what does it mean to be 'the lord's tribute?' The christian version would be to make them nuns, who cared for the tabnerical and helped the temple priests care for the people.

3.2 virgins? Are you sure? Never mind what being "the Lord's tribute" might have meant later - what did it mean at the time?

9. What is the origin of the "mighty men" giants known as nephilim?
this one they got completely wrong.
They were a cross breed from demons/fallen angels (who else was on earth besides man and woman?) 'sons of God and daughters of men.' This is mess was what was targeted in the Great flood.

That is the mess that God created sonny Jim - have a bit more respect for your Lord's work!

10. What happened to Korah and his family, Israelites who thought they could deal directly with God without a human intermediary?
This question is also very misleading.
The earth opened up and swallowed them, but the reason why was not for the one stated. They tried to take over and push moses out/start a civil war. read Numbers 16

Actually correct. There was no issue for the Israelites in dealing with God directly - that's a later Christian invention that had Jesus as some kind of broker for God.

11. According to the bible, who created evil?
If God created everything then evil would be included.

Sin= anything not in the expressed will of God.
Evil= a strong desire or willful act to intentionally be outside of God's expressed will.

In away Evil is the proof of freewill. For if God's will for us is in His expressed will, and we have the ablity to willfully be outside it, that means we have a 'will' independant of God's own will for us.

Now ask, who has provided attonement for evil?

Too fucked up to deal with. Simply put - other than the God's will aspect there is no way to differentiate many of the acts of God with purest evil.

12. According to the bible, what is God not able to do?
The bible does not say God is not able to do anything. This question refers to when God was with Juda, and when juda's army was defeated by an army equiped with 'charriots of iron.' What the question writer does not seem to comperhend was what was going on through out the book of 'Judges.' (this story takes place in judges one.) God uses 'judges' or armies, or nations to defeat kill capture and otherwise punish the jews who have turned from God, and started worshiping other gods, or breaking other commands in all manner of different ways. The books of judges chronical a pattern of sin by the jews, punishment from God, repentance by the jews deliverence from their captors, and with in a generation or two the cycle starts again.. Judges 1 (where this story is found) tells of the beginning of the first fall.

Long "answer" that ignores the question. God could not defeat iron chariots - whatever was going on in Judges- and your interpretation is a real stretch. Consider Samson - nothing to do with Jews worshipping Baal - Samson is the hero who defeated the Philistines.

13. According to the bible, where does God live?
This question is also misleading. God is everywhere, and therfore 'lives' everywhere. Heaven (the city that God builds After the events of revelation) is the final place, but from the beginning of time to now i can think of 1/2 a dozen places the bible mentions God has lived/lives. This question as stated if answered pushes someone to believe God only resides in one place, which is completely false.

Your answer is evasive - the question stands. Where God lives has nothing to do with your answer - I live in my house - but that doesn't stop me moving around outside.

14. According to biblical biology, what is a bat?
According to a language that had no word nor genus/species form of classification It lables a bat as a( עוֹף /`owph )which means a flying creature. http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/l...5775&t=KJV

So how does this question fail? It assumes you all are to stupid to understand that the bible was not written in english, and that you will not or can not understand the difference between a literal translation, and a contextual translation. That the KJV is a literal translation and simply lumps bats in with a list of other 'flying creatures.'

In other words - bird is the correct answer.

15. According to biblical anatomy, where does thinking happen?
this one flat out misrepersents genesis 6
"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Avoidance? How about Mark Chapter 7: 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”[f] (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

16. How did Gideon demonstrate his family values?
'Family values' was not a precept then. what kind of person judges a man who lived in the past by laws that did not exist then? a dishonest man looking to stack the deck in his favor.

The phrase may not have existed but the value one puts on one's family did as a concept - if we are going to throw around the dishonest tag....

17. After Jephthah was victorious in battle, what sacrifice did he burn on the altar, as he had vowed to the Lord?
Judges 11 does not say what he did, just that he carried out his vow.

And that vow was? Now who's being dishonest?

18. What price did David pay King Saul for his first wife?
this one is a little bit raceist/elietist. It implies 'we' are better because 'we' do not share the same customs.

As a Jew I can tell you its not racist nor elitist. What was the price Drich?

19. How many sexual partners did King Solomon have?
again how can you judge a man by an non existant law? To super-impose your 'morality' on to life as it was 3000 years ago is just proud foolishness.

There is no judgement in the question other than the reader's own. How many? And don't go telling me that was morally OK in those days - it was fucking unheard of (or should that read unheard of fucking?)

20. What happened to 42 little children who teased God's prophet Elisha for being bald and he cursed them in the name of the Lord?

again here the question writters are playing with the translations to change the meaning of the passage. the words in question are:
קָטָן qatan http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/l...6996&t=KJV
Which can mean small, insignificant young, or unimportant
-and
נַעַר na`ar http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=2K...JV#conc/23
which can mean Children, but can also mean:
a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer, servant.

Nope - its you that is playing with the translations to try to cover up the horrific nature of the story.

21. What reason did God give for tormenting Job?
None of the above answers were correct. Job was not given a reason.

It didn't ask if Job was given the reason it asked what the reason was. Another side-step non-answer.

22.According to the bible, what does Satan look like?

None of the above. Revelations 12 says there was a 'great sign' that of a dragon and goes on to describe answer b.
a 'great sign' is not a physical description. a Great sign points to symbology, or hidden meaning behind description. Which means what follows is not a physical description.

Yeah - whatever.

23. How does the biblical god treat haughty women?
Misleading question as there are several examples. In Christianity Meekness and humility is the cure for haughtness and pride in men and in women alike. If you were an old testament jew the treatment would be different. But, that's the thing the test gives do not mention. there haven't been any OT jews for over 2000 years.

That's like saying there haven't been any ancient Greeks for 2000 years so we don't need to worry about their laws.

24. In dollars (shekels), how much is a woman worth?
again when? Another misleading question. Jesus/God the Son was sold for 30 shekels of silver and put to death, while Herod's daughter was offered 1/2 of all of herods kingdom for something as trivial as a dance in Mark 6. The makes her net worth far above and beyond that of Jesus. another trick question.

Not a trick question at all, nor is it invalidated by variations in values assigned to different things.

25. What happens if a man rapes an engaged virgin in the city, and no one hears anything?
another misleading question. What is the time frame? The results are different for the Christian and the OT Jew.

Is the exact phrase within the question used in the NT? If not then its reasonable to surmise the reference is to the OT version. Why the constant avoidance of giving the answer?

26. What is the Mosaic Law punishment for being handicapped?
slick ploy. By denoting 'mosaic law' in this question is makes the others based in 'mosaic law' but not identified as mosaic law, as applicable to the Christian...
And yet they still manage to misdirect. There is no Hebrew word for Handicap in that time period. One was either considered clean or unclean. anyone considered 'unclean' could not worship in the temple.
some of the people we currently would consider 'handicap' would be considered unclean, but not all.

Oh well - that's alright then, as long as some of the disabled are in we can ignore those that are banned. WTF Drich?

27. According to the bible, when may a husband have sex with his wife?
Paul says we should not deny ourselves to one another, unless we both agree to over come a given obstical first.

The correct answer is none of the above.

Again avoiding the question - which again contains the specific text to look for (hint - its doesn't come from Paul).

28. How should you feel when you dash babies against the rocks?
as happy as you felt when a woman's right to choose was established and supported by the state.

Fuck you you twat. No-one ever feels elation over an abortion you ignorant shit. Elation over murdering babies is only on your fucking God's instructions.

29. How many human generations were there before Jesus?
of who/what?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

30. What Christmas tradition is expressly forbidden in the bible?
none of the above are forbidden.

Fore Paul tells us let no one tell use how when or what we use in worship.

Again - wrong answer - the clue is in the question.

31. According to Jesus, what must you do to have eternal life?
none of the above.
john 3:16 Jesus says: Fore God so loved the world that He gave his only son, that whomever believes in Him shall not perrish BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

Which is also a lie. 144,000 Jews get into heaven without paying any heed to that fuckwit Jesus. You showed me that one.

32. According to Jesus, how should Christian disciples treat their parents?
none of the above.

Jesus told a pledge/ a wantobe a disciple --"Let the dead bury the dead"-- The rest of answer 'd' was made up by a self righteous heart.

Now what are you talking about? A self righteous heart that wrote in the gospel?

33. According to Jesus, how should slaves be treated?
none of the above.

Jesus repeatedly says there is no difference between free or slave in the eyes of God and that we should treat EVERYONE the way we wish to be treated.

Wrong answer again. The question is looking for a specific answer.

34. What did Jesus say about peace?
none of the above. Jesus said mat 10: 34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[e] 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Well Christianity has certainly never brought peace, big on misery though - which must be just a bonus on the list.

35. Which one of these phrases did Jesus not say about witnessing?
Jesus says many things about witnessing. He mentions as he quotes OT law, He teaches about it and He uses the word to describe a testamony. The question does not frame the answers in the correct context allowing the creation of a false dichotomy.

Talking about not framing answers in the correct context - you are the king of that.

36. What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"?
as the question reads, and the conclusion it provides none of the above.
Mark 9 says if an eye causes you to sin pluck it out for it is better to enter heave with just one eye...

Yeah - and that Mark reference is relevant how exactly?

37. According to New Testament medical advice, what should you do if you are sick?
seriously? Luke was a doctor, his profession was not condemned. which means the bible has nothing against people seeing doctors.

Another question dodged.

The rest is just more of the same answering the wrong question, evading the question and complaining about the question. I got too bored at this point to continue.

I hope you can see the lenths and misdirection this test had to go to inorder to frame the bible and Christianity in the light you all have been basking in.

Well I can see the lengths someone had to go....

This is a shameful way to do to try and discredit what someone believes. It is lazy, 'immoral' and intelectually dishonest. If the bible is truly so unstable then why not just show it's faults where they truly are? what does it say about the effort it took to present the bible this way? what does it say about the willful ignorance or even obstinance to take something like this test to heart?

Yup, shameful - we just differ on who is being shameful here.

now that you know the truth I trust you will be willing to share the 'answers' to this 'test' as willingly as you were ready to share the test itself.

Absolutely - you just point me in the direction.