Bible Quiz—it's fun and challenging

[xpastor]

Question 2 misrepresents the Bible for not mentioning Exodus 31:14-15: "You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death." It's not as if God decided to put the man to death then and there (for the crime of profaning the Sabbath), it was already given as a commandment.

No misrepresentation at all. The quiz does not suggest that the man was put to death apart from this law. It says "For the chilling application of this law, see Numbers 15:32-36." Actually it is too generous. The account in Numbers certainly reads as if there was no law to be cited at the time.

32 Once, while the Israelites were still in the wilderness, a man was found gathering firewood on the Sabbath. 33 He was taken to Moses, Aaron, and the whole community, 34 and was put under guard, because it was not clear what should be done with him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must be put to death; the whole community is to stone him to death outside the camp.” 36 So the whole community took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord had commanded.

Anyway it doesn't much matter. Whether it was a regularly codified law or a capricious decision, the punishment does not accord with our modern ideas of religious freedom or proportionate punishment.

---

Well first off it's not the only place where the bible uses the phrase "ten commandments":

Deuteronomy 10:1-5
“At that time the Lord said to me, ‘Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to me on the mountain and make an ark of wood. And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you broke, and you shall put them in the ark.’ So I made an ark of acacia wood, and cut two tablets of stone like the first, and went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. And he wrote on the tablets, in the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And the Lord gave them to me. Then I turned and came down from the mountain and put the tablets in the ark that I had made. And there they are, as the Lord commanded me.”

Deuteronomy 4:13
And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone.

That one appears before the Ten Commandments given in Deuteronomy 5.

OK, you won that round, although it remains true that the Ritual Decalogue is also referred to as the Ten Commandments.

---

• 'The name "Jehovah" is a Christian mistake. It was forbidden to pronounce the name "YHWH" (Yahweh), and readers of the Hebrew scriptures were supposed to say "Adonai" in its place. "In written texts the vowels of Adonai were combined with the consonants YHWH to remind readers to pronounce Adonai instead of Yahweh. The incorrect hybrid, 'Jehovah,' arose from Christian misunderstanding in the late Middle Ages."(Harper's Bible Dictionary)'

Well, no, that's total rubbish. A second ago they were claiming that Ex34 is the 10 commandments in defiance of modern scholarship, and now they're claiming that the Tetragrammaton has the vowels from "Adonai"??

Um, 1. the vowels do NOT match Adonai, here's the proof:



And 2. the vowels match YHDWH perfectly, as proven above. So whatever, but YHDWH is transliterated into Greek: Ἰούδας and I'm sick of hearing the same bullshit repeated over and over and over, it's the closest name in the Bible to YHWH and it has exactly the same vowels, as you can see. The view that the vowels are borrowed from any other word is conjecture.

Most of your hyperbolic phrases (e.g. "no serious scholar") amount to saying "in my opinion."

The theory that Adonai was substituted for the Tetragrammaton is still supported by a large number of scholars, including Catholic Answers and Wikipedia which states:

The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh, however there is disagreement. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). ... the vowel points used when YHWH is intended to be pronounced as Adonai are slightly different to those used in Adonai itself.

---

Q4. How should parents treat a stubborn and rebellious son?

In context it is obvious this law relates to adult children, not adolescents.

Do you want to provide the context? I suspect it is all in your mind. The idea of stoning a young child is horrific to us, but remember these are the barbarians who thought it was great to bash out a baby's brains on the rocks if it happened to belong to an enemy nation. See Psalm 137:9.

Q5. Premarital sex is a sin. But what the quiz fails to recognize is the fact that women had far more rights and recognition under the ancient Israelites than in other cultures:

• And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days.

No other contemporary culture afforded these rights to women!

Umm.. this looks a lot like having to marry your rapist. Terrific example of women's rights.

While it is true that the OT contained the marry-your-rapist clause, this one is slightly different. It says to a woman, "You are stuck for life with a husband who tried to dump you with a lie that you were a slut before marriage."
Anyway the claim about the OT laws being the pinnacle of feminism for their time is, in a word, bullshit.

I immediately thought of Ancient Egypt and when I checked in Wikipedia my hunch was confirmed.

Women in Ancient Egypt had a status that may seem surprisingly modern when compared to the status women occupied in the majority of contemporary societies....
Current knowledge of Ancient Egypt indicates that Egyptian women were the equals of men under the law (unlike Greco-Roman or Mesopotamian women during the same period). Thus, they could own land, manage their own property and represent themselves in court cases. They could sit on juries and testify in trials. At the same time, they were also subject to the same legal penalties as men. She could divorce, initiate a lawsuit to recover the assets of the household and win the case....
Certainly, things did not always proceed in an ideal fashion and divorce existed. It began on the initiative of one or the other spouse. If the initiative came from the husband, it had to cede part of his goods to his wife; if the women took the initiative, she was held to the same obligation but to a lesser degree. ...
Few ancient civilizations enabled women to achieve important social positions. In Ancient Egypt, there are not only examples indicating women high officials were not so rare, but more surprising (for its time), there are women in the highest office, that of Pharaoh. More than a kind of feminism, this is a sign of the importance of theocracy in Egyptian society....
Noblewomen could be members of the priesthood connected to either a god or goddess. Women could even be at the head of a business as, for example, the lady Nenofer of the New Kingdom, and could also be a doctor, like the lady Peseshet a during the Fourth dynasty of Egypt....
The goddess represented the era's regard for women, because it was crucial to maintain the spirit in her image, it was this idea of eternal life and of maturity that Isis reflected, venerated as the Celestial Mother. It was in this role that Isis was arguably made the most important deity of Egyptian mythology. Her influence even extended to religions of different civilizations, where she would become identified under different names and where her cult grew, particularly in the Roman Empire.

Maybe there was something to be said for polytheism.

[Aractus]

Most of your hyperbolic phrases (e.g. "no serious scholar") amount to saying "in my opinion."

The theory that Adonai was substituted for the Tetragrammaton is still supported by a large number of scholars, including Catholic Answers and Wikipedia which states:

The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh, however there is disagreement. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). ... the vowel points used when YHWH is intended to be pronounced as Adonai are slightly different to those used in Adonai itself.

It's still conjecture. We don't know if they substituted Adonai or another title for God in antiquity.

I'm changing my position on this issue. No longer is my position that the name IS Yehovah - my new position is simply that I haven't seen sufficient evidence to prove it is Yahweh. The main problem I have with the Yahweh theory is the fact that the Jews have always understood the name to be Yehovah - that's how the name is taught by Jews to this day, and I've never seen any evidence that they've ever taught it any other way. I will continue to write it as Jehovah because we write Jesus as Jesus and not Joshua/Yehoshua, etc.

But the point is moot anyway, because my original point is that Jealous is a name God gives himself in the Bible, but it's not THE name. The quiz is biased, and the question is biased.

Exodus 34:14: "for ye do not bow yourselves to another god -- for Jehovah, whose name [is] Zealous, is a zealous God."

Did you notice how in the quiz they intentionally removed Jehovah (The Tetragrammaton) and replaced it with Lord (and not even in capitals)?

That's fine, God does name himself Jealous - but what about this?

Exodus 3:14-15: And God saith unto Moses, `I Am That Which I Am;' He saith also, `Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.'

And God saith again unto Moses, `Thus dost thou say unto the sons of Israel, Jehovah, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this [is] My name -- to the age, and this My memorial, to generation -- generation.

Here's a more modern translation: God replied to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

Where God specifically stats that his eternal name (for "generation to generation") is Jehovah/YHWH.

[Chad32]

Speaking of names, there's supposed to be a prophesy that a child of a virgin will be born, and he will be named Emmanuel. Is there any part of the new testament where Jesus is even called Emmanuel?

[Aractus]

Most of your hyperbolic phrases (e.g. "no serious scholar") amount to saying "in my opinion."

No it doesn't, it means that among all the scholarly differences in opinion between believers/unbelievers, etc, that there's a clear consensus view on it and that most hold the view - in this case - and it is indeed near-unanimous that the LXX was written in stages by different translators, it was never a single volume of work written by a single person or company at one time. The books were translated decades if not centuries apart, and so calling "it" "The LXX" or "The Septuagint" is in fact incorrect in the sense that it presumes that it was a single volume of Greek when in fact it wasn't, it was a collection of translations made at various times from c. 1st century BC to 2nd century AD, and we don't have the original either. All we have is a copy of the fifth column of the Hexapla, and it's widely acknowledged - and here's that term you didn't come to grips with before - it's a near unanimous view that Origen made changes to it as he went along, the changes were largely based on other Greek translations of the OT which had been written in the 2nd century AD, and also to the Hebrew itself. Outside of certain Biblical quotes, there is no evidence for the LXX's existence prior to the Hexapla. Origen was a Christian, he had the New Testament texts, he could have changed those parts of the fifth column to align with the small handful of quotes from the OT that favour the LXX.

I don't think that he did mind you, I think that "the LXX" was not "completed" until the 2nd century, that the Pentateuch was translated in the 1st century BC, and that the Prophets were translated 1st BC-1st AD centuries, and that the Writings were translated 1st-2nd AD centuries. All by different people, and then collected together.

[max-greece]

Speaking of names, there's supposed to be a prophesy that a child of a virgin will be born, and he will be named Emmanuel. Is there any part of the new testament where Jesus is even called Emmanuel?

Yes - but its all a bit weird. At the end of Matthew Chapter 1 the angel is explaining to Joseph that Mary is pregnant with God's kid and the angel tells him to bring the child up as his own, "and he will be known as Emmanuel."

Obviously - he isn't/wasn't but I think this is one of those additions written to fulfil the prophesy. There's a lot of that in the NT "in order that the prophesy be fulfilled...." To me its always seemed like cheating - if you know the prophesy and then follow it its not quite the same as doing your own thing and then finding out someone predicted it.

[Brian37]

I don't know if I mentioned it already but I got 31-50.

[xpastor]

I asked people if they could spot the question which I thought misrepresented the bible. No one got the one I had in mind, but I am awarding the kudos to Aractus for pointing out that the first question is misleading in that there are two different sets of Ten Commandments and so two correct answers to the question. I am sure just about everyone chose the answer about not coveting which is the conclusion to the Ethical Decalogue. Mind you, I suspect that for the ancient Israelites not seething a kid in its mother's milk as per the Ritual Decalogue was just as important as not coveting the ass of your neighbor's wife.

The question I had in mind was the last one, #50.

Can Christians ask their boss for a raise?

Answer, No.

The quiz cites Luke 3: "And [John the Baptist] said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? and he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."

The fact that John addresses soldiers makes clear that this is not about asking the boss for a raise, as an individual legionary could hardly go to his centurion and ask for a pay raise. John is actually addressing two different groups of people here and the passage should have included the preceding verse to show this.

12 Some tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, “Teacher, what are we to do?”

13 “Don't collect more than is legal,” he told them.

14 Some soldiers also asked him, “What about us? What are we to do?”

He said to them, “Don't take money from anyone by force or accuse anyone falsely. Be content with your pay.”

It was very easy for tax collectors to tell an ignorant populace that the taxes were higher than the government really wanted and then to pocket the difference. Soldiers of an occupying army had the temptation to loot from the people, and John tells them to be content with their pay rather than robbing others.

I am disappointed that the quiz did not see fit to include a question about the text I consider the absolute gem of OT jurisprudence, so I will supply the deficiency.

A woman should not intervene to help her husband in a street brawl because

1. she could get hurt in the fighting
   
2. she could be publicly shamed
   
3. she could be whipped
   
4. she could get her hand cut off
   

And the answer is ...

---

d

If two men are having a fight and the wife of one tries to help her husband by grabbing hold of the other man's genitals, show her no mercy; cut off her hand. Deut 25:11-12

---

It's been a while since I looked up this little gem. I don't think I ever paid attention before to the context surrounding it.

Chapter 25 begins with a rule for court disputes, no more than 40 lashes for the loser. Then it moves on to the well-meaning but unsanitary exhortation not to muzzle an ox while it is threshing grain. Then there is the law of levirate marriage, a man's duty to impregnate the widow of his dead brother if he died without issue. Now comes our regulation on street fighting. Then a command to use honest weights and measures in trade. Finally, an order to commit genocide upon the Amalekites.

I taught freshman English for six years BEFORE I entered the ministry, I find it hard to believe now that I never noticed before that I would have failed God for his incoherent rambling if this sort of thing had been handed in as an essay.

[Rev. Rye]

37/50.

[ThomM]

37 out of 50. I have never been a Xtian in my entire life -- not for one second.

It's a great quiz -- demonstrates how the Bible places no real value on human life.

That is NOT unusual - studies have shown that it is Non-believers who know most about religions. The theists will likely rank very low in actual knowledge about their religion because they are spoon fed from specific passages of the Bible - and those are SPUN to take a meaning the ministers want.

[xpastor]

Most of your hyperbolic phrases (e.g. "no serious scholar") amount to saying "in my opinion."

No it doesn't, it means that among all the scholarly differences in opinion between believers/unbelievers, etc, that there's a clear consensus view on it and that most hold the view - in this case - and it is indeed near-unanimous that the LXX was written in stages by different translators, it was never a single volume of work written by a single person or company at one time. The books were translated decades if not centuries apart, and so calling "it" "The LXX" or "The Septuagint" is in fact incorrect in the sense that it presumes that it was a single volume of Greek when in fact it wasn't, it was a collection of translations made at various times from c. 1st century BC to 2nd century AD, and we don't have the original either. All we have is a copy of the fifth column of the Hexapla, and it's widely acknowledged - and here's that term you didn't come to grips with before - it's a near unanimous view that Origen made changes to it as he went along, the changes were largely based on other Greek translations of the OT which had been written in the 2nd century AD, and also to the Hebrew itself. Outside of certain Biblical quotes, there is no evidence for the LXX's existence prior to the Hexapla. Origen was a Christian, he had the New Testament texts, he could have changed those parts of the fifth column to align with the small handful of quotes from the OT that favour the LXX.

I don't think that he did mind you, I think that "the LXX" was not "completed" until the 2nd century, that the Pentateuch was translated in the 1st century BC, and that the Prophets were translated 1st BC-1st AD centuries, and that the Writings were translated 1st-2nd AD centuries. All by different people, and then collected together.

Aractus, please refresh my memory. When did we ever clash over the date and provenance of the Septuagint?

I was thinking of your original emphatic dismissal of the theory that Jews vocalized Adonai when the text read JHWH. Also in another thread of your claim that Ehrman's views on pseudepigrapha in the NT represent a minority view.