"The bible test" Answered.

[max-greece]

You made a right abortion of this one Drichy

personal insult with no topical bearing on anything being discussed.

That is not a personal insult. You are a mental cripple - now that's a personal insult.

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.

The ten commandments are not given in an order of importance.
Christ says if we break the 'least of my commandments your guilty of breaking all of them.'

Again this was not the question. Which is the last of the commandments- not which is the least. No wonder you are doing so badly here - your reading comprehension is as bad as your writing.

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.

personal insult with no topical bearing on anything being discussed.

Again not a personal insult. Having a bad day?

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).

The word that describes God as 'perfect' refers to being complete/lacking nothing or whole.

If God was not able to manifest Jealousy a basic human emotion then God would be incomplete or lacking.

An argument I have used myself to prove that God was invented by man rather than the other way around. God does not have a sense of humour, a sense of proportion or, indeed, any sense in his dealings with us.

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.

A commandment is an order given directly from God. as in the 10 commandments, because they were written by the hand of God onto stone. The laws concerning social order/how to raise a son was a law given by moses. Hence the law of moses.
The laws of moses while inspired by God was not given directly by God.
Therefore not a command. The Story of the prodigal son however was given by God.
God the Son does indeed have the authority to change how we are to deal with a rebellious son.

Erm......bullshit (the bit in bold). The laws of Moses were not commands? Where do you get this shit from? You think Mosaic law was optional at the time?

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.

so you admit, trick question.

You "logic" escapes me there.

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.

If the test is limited by multiple choice and the complete answer is not in the bank of answers you have to choose from then that makes the question a trick question!!!

No - that just means you choose the best fit answer - have you never completed a multiple choice exam?

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?

No, but they (the gentiles) had perfected curing methods that perserved meats with salt and drying techniques. (not something nomads could easily do.)

So the question was perfectly AOK. Of the list presented you had to chose the one that was allowed under the dietary laws. I am not familiar with Roman meat curing procedures so I will take your word on it.

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?

It meant that the .02% of virgins remained virgins and were santified as temple workers.

So 3.2 virgins were "sanctified" as temple workers - that's your answer?

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!

personal belief with no topical bearing on anything being discussed.

Say what? You are now saying God's first version of creation was a fuck up. Perfect God needs 2 goes to get the earth right? You are just making this stuff up as you go along aren't you?

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.

No comment here - I'm surprised.

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.

Also ignored?

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.

Evidently my explaination was too difficult for you to comprehend.

If God was with Juda, and Juda fell to Iron Chariots, then God handed (intentionally) Handed them over to their enemies. One could argue 'nut-huh' if in the rest of the book nothing like this happened again.. But, as I pointed out Judges is all about God handing the jews over to their enemies for punishment till they repented, and the cycle continued for a very long time.

He lost intentionally? Of course he did.

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.

Define Omni-present. If God is everywhere all at once where does He live? Everywhere all at once. My answer is not 'evasive.' It makes you Think beyond the boundries of your question.

A, Its not my question.
B, This is coming from the Bible isn't it. So you are now saying the Bible is wrong? Good to know.

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.

Stupid or obstinate? The word the Hebrews use to describe a bat directly translates into 'flying creature.' Bat's are flying creatures and birds are flying creatures.
The ancient Hebrews did not have scientific catagories you are trying to force on their explaination. Which makes you stupid (intentionally ignorant) or obstinate (refuses to accept verfied fact.) Because you are no longer just ignorant (unaware) of the situation.

Still bird then.

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.”

Define Heart, or rather define καρδία, If you did you see that this greek word (as found in mark 7) can mean a blood pump, but if one were honest to the context he would see it also means: denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life
the vigour and sense of physical life
the centre and seat of spiritual life
the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours
of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence
of the will and character
of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/l...2588&t=KJV

"καρδία" means heart in Greek. Don't play that game with me - I live here for fuck's sakes. Jesus is talking about your physical heart. He shows in the quote that he has no understanding of medicine or the human body - or rather exactly the understanding that was prevalent at the time. Whilst he could be talking about a person's centre in much the same way we do that argument is totally undermined by "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.) "

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....

Haven't you pointed out yourself in other threads the lack of 'family values' in OT soceity? The way daughters were sold and generally treated as opposed to the males? Does this reflect anything resembling what we know to be 'family values?'

So tell me again about your version of honesty...

Actually I am not sure you haven't confused me with someone else. I do not recall such a discussion. It is, however, irrelevant. The question doesn't ask if Gideon's family values were out of sync with the rest of the OT - it asked how he demonstrated them.

I will assume, for now, you are not deliberately obfuscating so we don't have to bring your honesty up for question again.

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?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14912-pa...t=Jephthah

Start at post 56, and then please re-reference question #8 for precidence.

Avoided the question a second time I see.

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?

100 dead philistines, and a token from each.

Why the reticence to say foreskin?

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?)

A man was allowed to have as many wives and He could afford to have/could stand to have.

Are you under the impression that all 3000 of Solomon's sexual partners were his wives?
Anyway - nothing wrong with the question then.

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.

The only thing I have done is shed light on your witch hunt and backed it with legitmate reference material.

No, you haven't. You are debating whether it says children, boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer or servant without addressing what happened to them? Is it OK if it was servants teasing Elisha when the bears came out and ripped them to shreds?

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.

God did not Give a reason, because God did not torment job. Satan tormented Job. Even so God protected Job from experiencing Satan's full wrath.

OK - I will grant you that God didn't do the torturing - he let Satan do it. You've made up the bit about God protecting Job from experiencing Satan's full wrath. Now the question, properly qualified should be changed to: "What was the reason God allowed Job to be tortured by Satan?"
And no doubt you think that makes God come out better.

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.

So you agree its a bad or misleading question?

OK Drich - one to you.

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.

We don't worry about the greeks... law makers and history students might, but this country does not work on ancient greek law. so yes i agree you are right.

The important thing here is what do the, apparently optional, Mosaic laws (that are not commands) say about how to treat a haughty woman.

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.

It is a trick question because it misleads the reader into thinking that women had a lessor value than men. when infact I provided an example where God the Son was sold for far less than what Herod's daughter (A woman) was worth.

You are reading way more into the question that there is. There is no mention of relative values. It just asks what the value of a woman is.

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?

Because a woman's rape was treated differently in the NT verses the OT.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

Again though - not the question.
[/quote]