10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[Cyberman]

That explains all the foot-stamping tantrums and whining.

[Drich]

sure there were. And we have exact copies of them that were produced in the 2nd and third centuries. We even have some BC copies of older books.

Produce them, asshole.  I'm tired of your fucking bullshit.

Never heard of the dead sea scrolls?

Bronze coins found at the same sites form a series beginning with John Hyrcanus (135–104 BCE) and continuing until the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), supporting the radiocarbon and paleographic dating of the scrolls.[4]

In the larger sense, the Dead Sea Scrolls include manuscripts from additional Judaean Desert sites, which go back as far as the 8th century BCE to as late as the 11th century CE.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

---

Consider it?! But we're talking about making slavery great again, like in the Bible.

Hey retard, slavery has not gone anywhere. the fact that you can not own up to contributing to modern day slavery means that modern day slaves can be treated worse than they were in biblical times.
http://www.wilderutopia.com/internationa...e-slavery/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp_EkCesIp8

What you have the family, what even the wife! That's great because, according to bible,

I get to fuck her as much as I want once you become my slave.

book chapter and verse??

And if you're not married I'll find you a wife. It is in my great interest to marry you because not only do I get to fuck her as much as I want I also get to keep her and the kids after 7 years that you can supposedly go free. So if you want to be with her and kids you'll profess your eternal love to me and be my slave forever.

"When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,” then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life." Exodus 21:2-8

And why not? if I came to my master single and could not afford to take care of myself, and my master provides me with a life beyond my means... then it is His life not mine that I seek.

wow the first day and the power of own a slave has carried you outside the law of God. No wonder people like you are taught all slavery is bad.. because you have no human decency. meaning you can not care nor be trusted with the care of another human life with hurting it to please yourself.

Out the law of God? What are you talking about? God clearly lets people beat their slaves,

So? how do you purpose to discipline them when they steal or you catch them acting immorally? the prescription for society was to sell them into slavery till they cold pay what they owned.. So what if they were already slaves? Damn right you need to beat them. Otherwise the whole structure crumbles down.

just not kill them and for a purpose. I'll have to beat you so that pain keeps you awake and that you work more. Just imagine you will be sitting much less if you have bruises on your ass.

Again moron, that which you use yo measure and judge others God will use to judge you.

[Minimalist]

Never heard of the dead sea scrolls?

There is nothing about fucking jesus or christards in the DSS.  Wake up idiot.

[Silver]

Never heard of the dead sea scrolls?

There is nothing about fucking jesus or christards in the DSS.  Wake up idiot.

The mentions of Jesus I found on that page:

Eisenman, Robert H. James, the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1st American ed. New York: Viking, 1997.

James VanderKam; Peter Flint (10 July 2005). The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity

Thiering, Barbara, Jesus the Man, New York: Atria, 2006.

Thiering, Barbara, Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ISBN 0-06-067782-1), New York: Harper Collins, 1992

Only under references and bibliography.

[John V]

I think we all know the story.  God trolls Abe, hard, and Abe's all like "doy doy doy" -but ofc the story itself isn't even remotely the interesting part - or what we were discussing...so?  

Actually, yes, the OP specifically mentions Abraham in the write-up for that question. Abraham was not required to sacrifice his child.

---

But Apostle Paul countermanded Jesus !!

As noted, Jesus said he came specifically to Israel. He then sent Paul to the Gentiles. There are different rules for the two groups, as Israel voluntarily took on the Mosaic law.

[Minimalist]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-j-col...75155.html

The area of scholarship that has suffered most from wild speculation is the relevance of the Scrolls for Christian origins. Within a few years of the discovery, claims were made that a figure called the Teacher of Righteousness in the Scrolls was crucified and believed to have risen from the dead. These claims were swiftly discredited, but revived in the 1990s by the British authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, in “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception,” who claimed that the truth had been suppressed by a Vatican conspiracy. These claims have no basis.

There is what is known among scholars as "the silly season" which arises in the wake of every textual find.  Basically, nuts come out of the woodwork and declare that the latest find supports whatever biblical point of view they espouse.  After archaeologists discovered the Ebla library all sorts of OT shitheads declared that it was about Sodom and Gomorrah and the "cities of the plain."

To wit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/p...cfec84b68/

Ebla Tablets: No Biblical Claims

When 11,000 clay tablets dating from 23 centuries before Christ were unearthed in northern Syria three years ago, biblical scholars around the world rejoiced that ancient proof had been found for the Old Testament.
"The tablets were being hailed as a find equal in importance to the Dead Sea Scrolls," said Dr. Robert Biggs, professor of Assyriology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute. "The claims being made for these tablets created a sensation in biblical circles."
But three years of intense study and debate among scholars changed all that. No longer are biblical claims made for the 11,000 clay tablets of Ebla, the ancient Sumerian city whose palace was destroyed by fire around 2300 B.C.
"In my opinion, parallels with the Bible are quite out of the question at this stage," Biggs told a recent gathering of science writers sponsored by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. "People who are looking to the Ebla tablets for proof of the authenticity of the Bible are going to be sorely disappointed."

That includes people like Dripshit who leap at any piece of shit that someone dangles before his rather dim eyes.

Widely reported two and three years ago were the stories of the flood and creation that were supposed to have been inscribed on the tablets of Ebla. The creation story now turns out to be four lines of poetry in which not a single word has been translated. The flood story has now been reduced to a single word translated as "water."

The biggest problem with biblical scholars of the theistic type is that they never allow the evidence to speak for itself. They insist upon trying to shoehorn their bullshit into everything.  That's fine for asswipes like Dripshit but normal people must be more reserved.

[vorlon13]

We have Paul's assertion regarding his authorization from Jesus, but nothing from Jesus Himself.

We also have Joseph's Smith's assertion regarding his authorization from God and Jesus.


And Pat Roberson's, and Jimmy Swaggart's, and Tammy Faye Bakkers . . . .


See the problem there ?

[John V]

Must have hit submit by mistake while writing post - see below.

[Silver]

We have Paul's assertion regarding his authorization from Jesus, but nothing from Jesus Himself.

We also have Joseph's Smith's assertion regarding his authorization from God and Jesus.  


And Pat Roberson's, and Jimmy Swaggart's, and Tammy Faye Bakkers . . . .


See the problem there ?

But those men were divinely guided, don't you know.

[vorlon13]

There is (or should be) a qualitative distinction between the Bible recording Jesus saying this, Jesus saying that and so forth, and then when a Joseph Smith, or a Jim Bakker pops up and says things in accord with what Scripture records, that is fine and dandy, however, when someone pops up and says essentially Jesus told me to go contradict Him, there otta be a 'flag on the play'.

And this is an intramural thing, the Witnesses and the Believers need on their own to hew to Jesus first, and then weigh the words of potential usurpers of His authority with great care. If they are 'of Jesus' being as I said, one thing, or 'for Jesus however . . .' , being an entirely different thing entirely.