Ask me toughest questions on Bible

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
algebe's picture
So every time we ask a

So every time we ask a question, you run back to your theologians for an answer? Why can't these theologians come here in person?

My definition of a theologian: Someone who wastes his life studying an inverted pyramid of arcane, nonsensical non-knowledge that all narrows down to nothingness at its tip. Ask your theologians if that sums up their "profession."

Nyarlathotep's picture
MJM - But can you give Bible

MJM - But can you give Bible references for most of the questions?...but I need both references to complete my question.

No. You asked for questions; those are my questions. My questions come from me, so there is no reference for them other than my post which lists them. You (or someone you know I guess) is supposed to come up with the answers, not me. I mean that is what you are offering, right?

moh.j0336's picture
Ok I will find by myself. I

Ok I will find by myself. I am attending Bible college so its the only opportunity to ask and teach them logic.

algebe's picture
@MJM "I am attending Bible

@MJM "I am attending Bible college"

Go and study the real world. Learn something useful.

Jared Alesi's picture
Yes, your only opportunity to

Yes, your only opportunity to teach them logic. My friend, you don't need logic at a school for theology. All you need is a book, some other books written by professors that assumed the first book is correct, and the final prerequisite: belief in said first book. No logic required! Batteries included! Comes with all you see here! But wait, there's more! If you call in the next five minutes, we'll throw in an extra package of misogyny and homophobia for no extra cost! Just pay shipping and handling.

Sky Pilot's picture
MJM,

MJM,

What's up with the phony Ten Commandments? Why don't they push the real Ten Commandments?Can it be that they are embarrassed by them?

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. "What was King Saul's

1. "What was King Saul's cause of death?" - First Samuel 31 says that Saul was injured in battle and then killed himself. Second Samuel 1 relates an Amalekite’s claim to have killed Saul. Which account of the death of Saul is true?

The clear answer from the biblical text is that Saul killed himself and that the Amalekite’s story was a fabrication. The biblical text records the story the Amalekite gave but does not affirm it as true. Several reasons support this understanding of the text.

First, the initial report of the death of Saul is that he killed himself. We read, “The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him critically. Saul said to his armor-bearer, ‘Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me.’ But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day” (1 Samuel 31:3–6). The verses following this account also note several witnesses to this event.

Second, 2 Samuel 21:12 notes that the Philistines were responsible for the deaths of Saul and his sons: “The Philistines . . . struck Saul down on Gilboa.” While Saul took his own life, the suicide was prompted by his being mortally wounded by the Philistines.

Third, the Amalekite who lied needed an explanation for taking Saul’s crown and armlet. He said to David, “I stood beside [Saul] and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord” (2 Samuel 1:10). The Amalekite’s hope was that he would receive a reward for sharing this news and bringing these items to David. Instead, David judged him according to his words, putting him to death for daring to “destroy the Lord’s anointed” (2 Samuel 1:13–16).
2. "What was Judas Iscariot's cause of death?" - Judas hanged himself in the potter’s field (Matthew 27:5), and then, after his body decayed and bloated, evidently the rope broke, and he burst into pieces on the land of the potter’s field (Acts 1:18-19). The Acts passage presumes Judas' hanging, as a man falling down in a field does not result in his body bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. When Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver down, the priests took the money and used it to buy the potter’s field (Matthew 27:7), not knowing that Judas was going to hang himself there. Judas may not have purchased the field himself, but it was the money Judas received for betraying Jesus that purchased the field.
3. "In Jesus's genealogy, who is the son of Arphaxad?" - Genealogies in the bible can be legal (adoption) or genetic (actual physical child). I am not sure which is which, but either Genesis and Chronicle are genetic, and Luke legal, or the other way round. (I personally prefer the former).
4+5. Evolution.
6. God
7. Perez-uzza
8. Verses 11-12 aim to restore peace in the worship service by placing certain limits on the role of women. Probably as a result of the influence of the false teaching, some women had assumed the role of teacher. This step led Paul to invoke a subordination rule; it seems to have precluded women from teaching men, since to do so constituted authenteo--that is, the wrongful appropriation of authority over men.
9. 2 Chronicles records Jehoiachin’s age when he was appointed co-regent with his father, and 2 Kings records Jehoiachin’s age when, after his father’s death, he became king in his own right. Other kings also used co-regents. David appointed Solomon king while David was still alive (1 Kings 1:33-40), and, when Uzziah was afflicted with leprosy, his son Jotham became co-regent (2 Chronicles 26:21). While there is no specific mention of a co-regency in regards to Jehoiachin, this is a plausible explanation for the difference between 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9.
10. The correct age of Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem is 22. 2 Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was thirty-two when he became king and he died eight years later, at the age of forty. Therefore, Ahaziah could not have been forty-two at the time of his father's death at age forty." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page. 206-207.)
11. Clear and definite are the references that Abraham departed from Haran when he was 75 years old (Acts 7:4), and furthermore the mention that his father Terach died shortly before while they were still in Haran at the age of 205 years old (Genesis 11:32). The mistake leading to the wrong conclusion is made in a superficial reading of Genesis 11:26 because it does not say there that erach ws 70 years old when Abraham was born! It says in Genesis 11:26 that Terach lived 70 years and "begat ABRAM, NAHOR, AND HARAN." It is evident from the other records about Terach and Abraham that Terach's three sons were not born in the same year nor were they triplets. They were born one after the other, and the records in Genesis point to the fact that Haran was the oldest son of Terach, he was followed by Nahor, and Abrhaam was actually the youngest of the three. He is however named first in this mention of the three sons of Terach for which there is a definite reason, but it is certainly not his age. He, even though the youngest, was the one God had chosen.

Terach begat the first of his three sons at the age of 70 years; Abraham was not born until 60 years later when Terach already was 130 years old. Terach did die in Haran at the age of 205 years, when Abraham was 75 years old and just before Abraham left from there to go into the land of Canaan.
12. When David was anointed by Samuel, he had seven older brothers, so is correctly presented as the youngest of eight in 1 Samuel. One of those brothers then died, making David the youngest of seven, and this is the state of affairs reflected in 1 Chronicles.
13. In 1 Samuel 17:49-50 David kills Goliath with a rock and his sling. In 1 Samuel 17:51 David provided overwhelming evidence to the Philistines that Goliath was dead, by cutting off his head. The Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19 refers to Goliath of the GITTITE, the Goliath killed by David was of PHILISTINE

Nyarlathotep's picture
You didn't answer questions 3

You didn't answer questions 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,

6. You gave god as the answer, but the bible clearly says it was Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)

10. You gave the answer 22, but the bible clearly says it was 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2)

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
3. "In Jesus's genealogy,

3. "In Jesus's genealogy, who is the son of Arphaxad?" - Genealogies in the bible can be legal (adoption) or genetic (actual physical child). I am not sure which is which, but either Genesis and Chronicle are genetic, and Luke legal, or the other way round. (I personally prefer the former). The sons Shelah (Genesis, Cainan).
4+5. Animals + Plants then man.
6. Satan incited, but God ordered. Incite means to encourage, not to order.
8. Man are seen as the final authority. What he says goes. Woman must obey Man. But, Man must serve Woman. He must do what is best for her. Servant leadership.
9. Jehoiachin was Co-king, acted on the King's behalf when the king was busy, but became his own king when it was 18.
10. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+22%3A2&version.... "Ahaziah was twenty-two[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri."

Apart from these questions, do you agree I have answered correctly

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - 6 Satan incited,

UnKnown - 6 Satan incited, but God ordered. Incite means to encourage, not to order.

That contradicts your previous answer that god incited David to do it!

Your statements on 4, 5, and 10 contradict the bible.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. "That contradicts your

1. "That contradicts your previous answer that god incited David to do it!" - Apologies, when I read your question as to who incited David, I read that as, who told David to do it. My fault. I'll answer it again. Satan incited, but God ordered, or told, David to do the consensus. I recall my first answer of God.
2. "Your statements on 4, 5...contradict the bible." - I believe in theistic evolution and that Genesis 1 is not literal.
3. "Your statement...10 contradict the bible." - How? The bible says 22. Footnotes below says that some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac say 42, but this is an error. What is actually accepted in 22.

Again I ask, apart from these, have I answered correctly?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Satan incited, but God

Satan incited, but God ordered

That contradicts 2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.
---------------------

UnKnown - Again I ask, apart from these, have I answered correctly?

I have no way of telling; which is partly my point.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. This is entirely my fault.

1. This is entirely my fault. I must have misread it. I apologise for my ignorance. In 2 Samuel 24:1, God incited David to number Israel because God was angry with David. Ultimately, God wanted to teach David not to trust in his number of fighting men, but to trust in Him. So, He moved to let David count the fighting men of Israel. He used Satan to do it which is why in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says Satan moved David to count the men. Both are true. God most probably either sent Satan or allowed Satan to incite David. But, how can God send Satan to do a job and yet God is not responsible for the sin? Simple.

God's authority extends even over Satan. God can use Satan to accomplish His ultimate will by simply giving permission to Satan to do that which Satan already desires to do. We see this in the crucifixion of Christ where evil men brought Jesus to death. Yet, at the same time, it was the predetermined plan of God that this be done.
2. "I have no way of telling; which is partly my point." - Okay how can you not tell and what is your point?

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - God can use Satan

UnKnown - God can use Satan to accomplish His ultimate will by simply giving permission to Satan to do that which Satan already desires to do. We see this in the crucifixion of Christ where evil men brought Jesus to death. Yet, at the same time, it was the predetermined plan of God that this be done.

That is the end of freewill; and the end of any notion of personal responsibility.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
Humans, whether if you are an

Humans, whether if you are an atheist or christian, do not have complete free will. If I think I can fly, I can't. Our free will is limited by our nature. We can want to fly, but we can't actually fly. God's predestination does not mean that we cannot make free will choices. God predestines in and through our choices because God is all-knowing and all-powerful. He knows what we will do because he knows all things. He cannot NOT know all things. So, whatever you choose to do out of your own free volition is known. But his knowing doesn't mean you don't freely choose. So God knew we were going to sin, so he planned accordingly.

An illustration would be that I could arrange for my child to choose ice cream over something else and not violate his free will. For instance, I could put a bowl of chocolate ice cream and a bowl of dirt and rocks in front of a child, and I know exactly which one the child will choose to eat. But my knowing does not violate the child's free will.

AGAIN I ask, have I answered those other questions correctly?

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - AGAIN I ask, have I

UnKnown - AGAIN I ask, have I answered those other questions correctly?

AGAIN I tell you, I have no way of knowing.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
How can you not know? What

How can you not know? What makes my answers so hard to understand that you don't know.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Because your answers

Because your answers contradicted the bible.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
Can you please explain, over

Can you please explain, over each question I have answered, how I contradicted the bible?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Have you not been reading the

Have you not been reading the thread?

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
What I have been reading is

What I have been reading is that you asked questions, I answered, you had problems with some, I answered, problem with only two, I answered, problem with one, I answered. The fact that the questions that you had a problem with shrank as I answered. This leads me to the conclusion that I have sufficiently answered the ones you didn't have a problem with. If you still have those problems, them please say/ask them!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well just for starters, you

Well just for starters, you told us animals were created before man. That contradicts Genesis 2:19 which tells us that animals were created after man.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
Genesis 2:19 says that God

Genesis 2:19 says that God formed animals from ground. That doesn't mean it happened after man was created. Genesis 2: 19 says God HAD formed (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A+19&version=NIV). Past tense. This means animals were created, then man. Any others?

Sky Pilot's picture
UnKnown,

UnKnown,

That's not what the others say.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%202:19

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
The English Standard accepts

The English Standard accepts that the Hebrew verb "form" can also be interpreted in the "pluperfect" form, giving the more logical "God had formed every beast…" The point of Genesis 2:19 isn't to give the hour when God made the animals; it's to explain that God did make the animals, and then sent them to Adam to be named. The fact is, “Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation” (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Genesis 2:19 says that God

Genesis 2:19 says that God formed animals from ground. That doesn't mean it happened after man was created.

Actually it does, you took it out of context! If you read the previous verse it does stipulate that this happened (creation of animals) after man already existed. Funny how the Christian takes a verse out of context the INSTANT he needs it. Yet cries that he is the victim of stuff being taken out of context.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
How is it out of context?

How is it out of context?

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - The Lord God said,

Gen 2:18-19 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Clearly, man was created before the animals; at least according to this incarnation of your mythology.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
When it is said that he is

When it is said that he is alone, it does not mean that Adam was all by himself, because God was there. So what does it mean that Adam is alone. Though there was an upper world of angels, and a lower world of brutes, yet there being none of the same rank of beings with himself, he might be truly said to be alone.

Andrea Sokolovskyi's picture
In the german translation

In the german translation from Luther is clearly written, that it isn`t good that Adam was alone, god wanted to create him an assistant (female). And then (which is clearly said in german) god made alle the animals and birds and brought them to the human to name them.
No other interpretation is possible for a german reader. The language and the words are pretty simple and clear.

And in the case that there are mistakes in translations, nothing proves that the original texts are free from mistakes.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.