4 comments/ 3337 views/ 1 favorites Fundamentalists and the Bible 03 By: wistfall1 Just to be certain about it, there is no proof of there being a God, nor is there any proof that there isn't a God. No one knows one way or the other. Further, all of those books of the Old and New Testament with names given to them, no one knows who actually wrote any of them. Yes, there probably was an Isaiah and a Jeremiah, even a Paul, and Paul may have written some of his letters, but certainly not all of them as researchers have proven. Tthere may have actually been a Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the books ascribed to them do not say specifically that they were written by them personally. In fact, no one knows who wrote them, or even who actually may have been Mark or Luke, or for that matter, who was the John whose name is on a gospel and the Revelation. Matthew is a somewhat known quantity, but not that he was the one who wrote the gospel that bears his name. Further, it is now well accepted that the book of Isaiah was written by two, and possibly three or more people. There are very famous and often quoted verses in that book—chapter 53, verses 4 through 6 about being "wounded for our transgression" —that just about every preacher quotes as referring to Jesus, and it being prophetic and written by Isaiah. What is odd about this is that chapter 53 is well out of the reach of the known real, or original, Isaiah's writings, and is well into those writings of the second Isaiah, whoever that person was. No one has any idea, yet his writing is venerated as one of the main words of God for Christianity. It is accepted because it serves the churches to not tell anyone that this is from an unknown Isaiah that someone just decided to paste onto the original Isaiah's writings (if the real Isaiah really wrote the book of Isaiah—no one really knows that for sure). However, we can be sure that some of these itinerant and ignorant preachers are not familiar with the several Isaiah's. We have to wonder about whether or not those with regular congregations know of this. For sure, many do, and they are the biggies who don't care whether or not their followers know what they do, just as long as they believe and tithe, or give whatever they can. Talk about pulling the wool over the eyes of the ignorant followers, and keeping them ignorant, and all the while preaching it as if from the first Isaiah. That's a time honored tradition though. The Catholic Church didn't allow the laity to read the Bible. They wanted them to go through their priest for scripture. That kept everything safe and tidy for them. Even Luther, a time-honored personage seen as someone who really wanted things to be as they should be, hated reason, but there were other things he hated too. He is said to believe that reason was the enemy of faith. Reason leads to questions, and again, that's what he, or any of them, didn't want. Calvin was tolerant of other beliefs, just not in his own bailiwick. There, if one opposed him, he had them killed off. Questions are verboten more than strenuously, even to this date. All of the above is taken on "faith", period! Tell it to them, and tell them that it is from God's holy word, and not to question it. That faith, blind belief, is of old, and obviously false in the Old Testament in so far as it being the word of God and without error. That, in fact, makes the New Testament, which is born of the Old Testament, also false and most of it also unverifiable and definitely not without error. No, the New Testament, like its progenitor, is full of errors. That 'faith" has morphed into willful blindness, a conscious, or semi-conscious refusal to admit to what the eye tells the mind is before it. There was a commentator on Essay #2 who ridiculed my use of a word indicating a vast number of animals that could only have applied to Noah and the ark. What that commentator didn't say was anything about chapter 6 and chapter 7 of Genesis giving different versions of how many of each animal was taken into the ark. That's disingenuous if ever anything was. No, that's most likely not willful blindness, but most likely an intended deceit, something to put a question in the reader's mind as to whether or not what their eyes told them was really there. Then again, maybe it was willful blindness. Only the writer of the comment knows for sure, but we'll never know as that person commented anonymously. Many have called the Old Testament myths of the Jews. Is this true? Was Jonah swallowed by a whale? Would you believe Joshua? There is a Jewish myth that parallels Jonah being swallowed by a whale (which also reads as if an unbelievable myth), as well as a great many other myths. If you don't believe this, look for "Legends of the Jews" by no less an author than Rabbi Louis Ginzberg, a highly respected rabbi and author, scholar and expert in Judaism in his day. In fact, he has several volumes of these legends. How many might be in the Old Testament, we have no idea for certain, but... What all this is intended to say, and to prove, is that when Fundamentalist preachers and believers say that the Bible is the word of God and without error, that is as false as can be—that we've already proven in the first essay, as well as the second essay. They use this belief to push, in our modern day, an agenda of making our laws the same laws as laid down in the Old Testament, and therefore to kill any who disobey them, including their expanded belief that Lesbians, Gays, Transgenders, Transsexuals, Transvestites, and even those born Intersex are included in this prohibition though the Bible doesn't specify it (as Pat Robertson, one of the weirdest fundamentalists of all, indicates it should if anything is to be prohibited). They blatantly ignore openly obvious errors in their saying that the Bible is inerrant (is absolutely without any error) as has already been shown in the first two essays to be wrong, particularly the fable of Noah and his ark which has two very different and distinct versions, the one in chapter 6 of Genesis, and the other following on its heels in chapter 7 as mentioned earlier here. What we probe here is whether the Bible truly is the error free word of God as Christian Fundamentalists say it is, and if not, why, or where it isn't. This, again, is done because of the recent high profile screaming that fundamentalists have done in opposition to same-sex marriage which they say is against God's word and wishes. If this "God" that they promote is true and error free, then they might have cause, but if their "God" is full of errors, then they have no cause whatsoever. Please note the vast number of errors already found in the first two essays. Of just as great an importance to the many who read these essays is whether or not one truly wishes to believe what some unknown and nebulous people wrote or not. Personally, I can't see believing in some unknown person's writings about a god such as is portrayed in the Old Testament as being so vengeful and genocidal. If any were not raised in this culture, and read stories such as we are told in the Bible, I seriously doubt that anyone would believe them. We'd be looking at them with different eyes, eyes unaltered by our culture. Those stories would be just that—stories. On a personal note, I am but someone who was once ignorant of these facts, and at one time a believer pretty much as the Fundamentalists preach (that is, that the Bible is God's word). No longer. Now I not only question, but have been reading verse-by-verse in the bible with a very objective eye and mind, as well as a very questioning one. None need be traumatized, shamed, humiliated, or terrorized by these preachers who are purveyors of falsehoods, and quite frankly, many of the major ones for their own personal gain, the need of feeling powerful in controlling lives, as well as for pure greed. A search through the Internet will bear this out, as will some of the fancy, never used by Jesus or his disciples, clothing intended to magnify the wearer's so-called importance. Jesus rode no fine steed, nor wore fancy clothes and definitely not a fish-head cap on his head to proclaim to one and all who he was. If he were here today, as he is portrayed, he'd not be riding in a limousine, nor own a huge house and have a Mercedes for his wife, or himself. His disciples wouldn't be wearing fancy clothes, and seeking to make sure no one got close to him, nor asked him any embarrassing questions. In this exposure of the lies, the telling of the truth of those lies, is very important for many lesbians are put through an unfair wringer, their lives and their inner desires shredded by these purveyors of the lies. It is high time that lesbians stop being shamed, humiliated, tormented, and traumatized by these ignorant preachers as well as by the rich and greedy ones. The same goes for gays, transgenders, transsexuals, and those who are intersex. All that said, let's look at some more of what really is in the Bible, or as Liv says in The Devil's Gateway, the truth of the lies. In the first essay which covered the first eight (8) chapters of Genesis, and the second essay which covered from chapter nine (9) through half of chapter eighteen (18), there have been found a total of eighty-five (85) pretty easy to see major errors, and twenty (20) probable errors. Doubtless I have missed some errors; however it only takes one (1) error to prove the Fundamentalists wrong. This being so, we definitively know that the Bible is not as the Fundamentalists portray it. Here now are some of the errors starting with the last half of chapter 18, from verse 22 where we left off in the previous essay: Chapter 18 22 So the men turned from there, and went towards Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord. 23 Then Abraham came near and said, 'Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just? 26 And the Lord said, 'If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.' 27 Abraham answered, 'Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. 28 Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?' And he said, 'I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.' 29 Again he spoke to him, 'Suppose forty are found there.' He answered, 'For the sake of forty I will not do it.' 30 Then he said, 'Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.' He answered, 'I will not do it, if I find thirty there.' 31 He said, 'Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.' He answered, 'For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.' 32 Then he said, 'Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.' He answered, 'For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.' 33 And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place. Shades of Noah and his ark; but wait, there is more. Destroy it all for there is wickedness. If you're as most of us are, or were, the Bible was sacrosanct, or too important to be interfered with. That's how I was raised, and as far as I know, every other person that professed Christianity felt the same way. Even some doctors and scientists of various sorts still feel that way. On our Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia firmly believes that same thing from all of his pronouncements to the public. Probably some other justices do too, just not as publicly as Justice Scalia. As we are about to see, this will come under the scrutiny of looking for the truth of the matter versus what men wish us to believe. No, nothing will be pronounced as a major error unless there is good and visible proof of it, but we're about to look at who may have written at least some parts of the Bible, and why. Yes, it has to do with what is described as the depravity of mankind in a very sexual way, however let's keep in mind what many psychologists and psychiatrists say about too often, and too strongly objecting to something, or someone. Even Shakespeare is quoted as saying something like, "Me thinks he/she doth protest too much," or something close to that. In other words, if it was men who actually wrote the Bible (considering all the errors we have already seen that are easily verifiable), we have to wonder at why they wrote parts of it as they did. Bear with me on this, and at the end, consider it carefully, and whether or not these men are simply afraid of their sexuality, or fearful of being taken homosexually as probably often did happen in those early days. If they had reason, it's understandable, but to promulgate it vociferously just because that's the fear they had back when, and use the old rules of Jewish men to back up their present day fears is wrong in every sense of the modern word. What was dictated as a law back then was married to another law and practice that is wrong in every sense of the modern word, and that is treating women as property, chattel, personal property the same as was slavery in our Civil War days, to be done with as pleased the owner, or man, be he husband or father, or simply guardian. This, as has already been shown, will be seen in a few of the verses herein quoted. Yes, the one goes with the other, and both are wrong for our day, yet perhaps in the days of the Jews it wasn't wrong, or at least had some semblance of rationale. Where, though, does that rationale of old end? You'll have to be the judges in your own minds on this, as well as whether or not the Bible is God's word and wholly without error. Again, this is said because of the statements that are being made in our day—our present day—by preachers and politicians alike, or given damaging approving lip service to this out of date idea and all in the name of religion passed down through our ages culturally though much is being found to prove it wrong, including these essays using the Bible itself in many, if not most of the cases cited. Let's continue for a short while and see what happens next. Please keep in mind that five asterisks *****are used to indicate a major error, and two asterisks ** indicate a probable error. Genesis 19 The Depravity of Sodom 1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 He said, 'Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way.' They said, 'No; we will spend the night in the square.' 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Just a note here: Why "unleavened" bread already. Wasn't this a special sign the Jews were to follow in Moses' day for the Passover? It is noted here as something not mentioned as yet in the Bible, or a reason for it. Check any concordance of the Bible and you will see that this is the first mention of it period. Why? Is it a sign, a signature, as forensic criminologists say is an identifier of one who does a particular thing in a particular way, in their case, a criminal who commits a crime in his or her special way that identifies an identifier of the perpetrator? In this case, someone who knows about unleavened bread being used, but in Moses' time (see Exodus, chapter 12, verse 8 for the second time this word is used in the Bible). This is a signature of someone who is familiar with "unleavened" bread because it is from the time said to be when Moses directed it to be made without leavening. This being the case, we have here proof positive that a man, or men, at a later date, wrote this. If Moses had written it, he would not have used the word "unleavened" here as it wasn't commanded by God as yet. As such, this is a major error. ***** 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.' Just as a comment, "know them" is commonly accepted to be the Bible's way of saying so we can "have sex" with them. FYI for any that may not be familiar with this usage. 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, 'I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.' This, then, is the "marriage" of ideas or ways that I mentioned earlier. First, Abram gave his wife, Sarai, to Pharaoh's use. It was good of him to tell her before that he intended to do that, yet it is still behaving as if a woman, wife or not, is nothing but chattel, property, to be done with as the man pleases. In this case, Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the men to rape—make that gang rape—but don't touch the men. Later on it would be told to the Jews to be kind to strangers for they too were once strangers in a strange land. It was taken to mean that they were to be protected from others of the town, village, etc., but to the extent of offering up one's virginal daughters? That's ludicrous. Also, this wasn't after Egypt when Jews were strangers in a strange land as they were in their so-called captivity, and this law hadn't been proclaimed as such yet. That makes this an error in the Bible for it was put in there by a man who knew of the injunction when it was given and ascribed it to Lot in his so-called day. ***** Wait, some say, these were angels, or God himself. Ah, but Judges, chapter 19 reveals the lie in anyone who thinks that, for if any will look, a Jew offered his daughter and the concubine of the stranger-man the "men of the city" decided they wanted, were offered in his stead to "do with them as seemeth good unto you, but unto this man do not so vile a thing." (King James Version, but same in other bibles) Cute, isn't it? Don't do so "vile" a thing to him, but do as you wish with his maiden daughter and the man's concubine. Here we see clearly how women were as chattel, slaves, who were to do anything the man who literally owned them said to do, whether they wanted to or not. Yes, it sounds more than familiar doesn't it? Oh, the concubine was said to be found dead in the morning (see the book of Judges, chapter 19, verses 22 thru 30). This was all due, many say, because Jews were honor bound to protect strangers in their house as I mentioned. Protect them by giving up your virgin daughter for them to sexually use and abuse as they please? This is another signature, and not in any book said to have been written by Moses. This is the work of man, or men, not of any god. Then again, this god did order genocide after the Exodus. In any event, this is a major error that is undeniable. ***** Also, why wasn't it said that this same demand was made of Lot when he first entered the city? A convenient omission that is glaring in the light of seeing whatever it is that the men who wrote this Bible wanted to be known, whatever their reason was, but a glaring thing to think of anyway. Think of it. All that being said and pointed out, this then is how the Jews of that day thought and felt—it is the men that are important, and the women are simply sows to be used to breed with, and very expendable. Fundamentalists and the Bible 03 That this is true, and not just someone meanly pushing their version of things is again testified to by the Bible itself. To see this, go to the Gospel of John, chapter 8, verses 3 through 11 for the woman caught in adultery, and ask yourself: If she was caught in adultery, there had to be a man to be adulterous with. Where is the man? More, why didn't Jesus ask where the man was? Women aren't important in most of the Bible, only men. This is exactly one of the things the Fundamentalists today push, that as the Bible says, woman is subject to her husband or father, or male guardian. Shades of the Taliban. Go to the first essay and see what many present day preachers and politicians say must be done for we are a nation of God. Kill the homosexuals just as the law of Moses says to do, as well as kill for many other silly reasons of our present day. This Bible is not without error, period! It is error filled! 9 But they replied, 'Stand back!' And they said, 'This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.' Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. 10 But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door. Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed 12 Then the men said to Lot, 'Have you anyone else here? Sons, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city—bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.' 14 So Lot went out and said to his sons, who were to marry his daughters, 'Up, get out of this place; for the Lord is about to destroy the city.' But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting. How could they be sons if they were to marry his daughters? Since they weren't married yet, they could only be prospective sons-in-law. This is an error in the bible. ***** 15 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, 'Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be consumed in the punishment of the city.' 16 But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and left him outside the city. After Lot knew the angels stopped the men from breaking in and seizing them, Lot still doesn't believe their power? He doesn't believe that they are supernatural? 17 When they had brought them outside, they said, 'Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed.' 18 And Lot said to them, 'Oh, no, my lords; 19 your servant has found favour with you, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, for fear the disaster will overtake me and I die. Only Lot and his immediate family were saved? What about his servants, hired men, his herds and flocks? No word of them being warned, just Lot and his prospective sons. Does that seem right? 20 Look, that city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there—is it not a little one?—and my life will be saved!' 21 He said to him, 'Very well, I grant you this favour too, and will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22 Hurry, escape there, for I can do nothing until you arrive there.' Therefore the city was called Zoar. 23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven; 25 and he overthew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. Okay, this is a staple of biblical belief, but it is an error nonetheless, this turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. An error foolishly put in the Bible. ***** 27 Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord; 28 and he looked down towards Sodom and Gomorrah and towards all the land of the Plain, and saw the smoke of the land going up like the smoke of a furnace. 29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had settled. The Shameful Origin of Moab and Ammon 30 Now Lot went up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; so he lived in a cave with his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.' Not a man on earth, only their old father? It's not preserve our father's lineage, but have children, and no men on earth. Was it that they were so ugly that the men of Sodom rejected them in favor of men? Were there truly no men anywhere? What about Zoar, or other locations? This makes it seem as if the daughters were too anxious to have sex with someone, anyone. This is ludicrous, and obviously a story to make up the tribe of sinful Moabites and of the Ammonites as in verses 37 and 38 below. This is very obviously fictitious. An error in the Bible. ***** 33 So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. 34 On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, 'Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.' 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son, and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day. 38 The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day. There are six (6) major errors in chapter 19 of Genesis. Genesis 20 Abraham and Sarah at Gerar 1 From there Abraham journeyed towards the region of the Negeb, and settled between Kadesh and Shur. While residing in Gerar as an alien, 2 Abraham said of his wife Sarah, 'She is my sister.' And King Abimelech of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, 'You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a married woman.' 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, 'Lord, will you destroy an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, "She is my sister"? And she herself said, "He is my brother." I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands.' 6 Then God said to him in the dream, 'Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart; furthermore it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. 7 Now then, return the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all that are yours.' For the second time, Abraham pawns off his wife so another can have her sexually as he did with Pharaoh. This time, however, Abimelech is warned in a dream by God. Now why didn't God warn Pharaoh a forehand, who also thought she was only Abraham's sister? Is this bad writing or what? Is this how a god would act? An error in the Bible for no reason is given for this second occurrence. ***** Also, Sarah, in chapter 17, verse 17, is said to be ninety (90) years old. Are we to believe again that she was still so beautiful that she was irresistible sexually? After ninety years of traveling and living in a harsh climate? That's too much to believe save for the gullible. This has to be an error in the Bible. ***** 8 So Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants and told them all these things; and the men were very much afraid. 9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said to him, 'What have you done to us? How have I sinned against you, that you have brought such great guilt on me and my kingdom? You have done things to me that ought not to be done.' 10 And Abimelech said to Abraham, 'What were you thinking of, that you did this thing?' 11 Abraham said, 'I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12 Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And when God caused me to wander from my father's house, I said to her, "This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother." ' 14 Then Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves, and gave them to Abraham, and restored his wife Sarah to him. 15 Abimelech said, 'My land is before you; settle where it pleases you.' 16 To Sarah he said, 'Look, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; it is your exoneration before all who are with you; you are completely vindicated.' 17 Then Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children. 18 For the Lord had closed fast all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham's wife. Abraham and his army of people "in his house" that had just defeated armies of other nations, and his herds, all of whom are used to living off the land and in tents, go to a city where he will have to give up his wife to presumably preserve his life again. This stretches credulity, and must be an error in the Bible. ***** There are three (3) major errors in chapter 20 of Genesis. Genesis 21 The Birth of Isaac 1 The Lord dealt with Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as he had promised. 2 Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the time of which God had spoken to him. After her time had passed, she bears a son at ninety when her body has no eggs? The writers didn't know about the limits of eggs and how they were reabsorbed into the body, but surely they knew of menopause. Regardless, they give us a miracle that is unbelievable. Fundamentalists and some others will say this is possible, but if it is men who wrote the Bible, it is not possible, and men did write the Bible as we have seen already in the previous two essays, therefore this is an error in the Bible. ***** 3 Abraham gave the name Isaac to his son whom Sarah bore him. 4 And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. 5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. 6 Now Sarah said, 'God has brought laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me.' 7 And she said, 'Who would ever have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.' Hagar and Ishmael Sent Away 8 The child grew, and was weaned; and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. 9 But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac. 10 So she said to Abraham, 'Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not inherit along with my son Isaac.' 11 The matter was very distressing to Abraham on account of his son. 12 But God said to Abraham, 'Do not be distressed because of the boy and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be named after you. 13 As for the son of the slave woman, I will make a nation of him also, because he is your offspring.' 14 So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered about in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. 15 When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went and sat down opposite him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, 'Do not let me look on the death of the child.' And as she sat opposite him, she lifted up her voice and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the boy; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, 'What troubles you, Hagar? Do not be afraid; for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. 18 Come, lift up the boy and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make a great nation of him.' 19 Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. She went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the boy a drink. 20 God was with the boy, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. 21 He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother got a wife for him from the land of Egypt. What about food? Ishmael grows up and becomes an expert with a bow, and no mention of any man to teach this to him, nor act as a father. There is no mention of manna from heaven either, nor of how they survived the animals that preyed on anything or anyone that was available. This is pure fiction, and as such, it is an error in the Bible. ***** Abraham and Abimelech Make a Covenant 22 At that time Abimelech, with Phicol the commander of his army, said to Abraham, 'God is with you in all that you do; 23 now therefore swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me or with my offspring or with my posterity, but as I have dealt loyally with you, you will deal with me and with the land where you have resided as an alien.' 24 And Abraham said, 'I swear it.' 25 When Abraham complained to Abimelech about a well of water that Abimelech's servants had seized, 26 Abimelech said, 'I do not know who has done this; you did not tell me, and I have not heard of it until today.' 27 So Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and the two men made a covenant. 28 Abraham set apart seven ewe lambs of the flock. 29 And Abimelech said to Abraham, 'What is the meaning of these seven ewe lambs that you have set apart?' 30 He said, 'These seven ewe lambs you shall accept from my hand, in order that you may be a witness for me that I dug this well.' 31 Therefore that place was called Beer-sheba; because there both of them swore an oath. 32 When they had made a covenant at Beer-sheba, Abimelech, with Phicol the commander of his army, left and returned to the land of the Philistines. "The land of the Philistines" is an error in the Bible. Philistines were a sea people known historically in the time of Ramses III which was long after this time here. Why long after this time? Isaac has yet to live out his life (the Bible says in chapter 35, verse 28) that he died at one hundred and eighty (180) years of age, and Jacob is said to have lived one hundred and forty-seven (147) years (chapter 48, verse 28), the last seventeen years in Egypt. The Israelites were said to live in Egypt for four hundred and thirty (430) years. If, as Exodus, chapter 1, verse 11 says, that in their captivity they were to build the cities of Pithom and Raamses, then it was in the time of one of a Ramses: Ramses I or Ramses the II. Most believe it was Ramses II who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus (though that is highly in question and by none less than the bible itself). The first mention of Philistines in history, and by the Egyptians, was in the time of Ramses III in about 1183 BCE which was well after Abraham's time. The Philistines were said to be a people of the sea, and one of about five (5) peoples that Ramses III fought and defeated when they sought to invade Egypt. This means that the Philistines were unknown until they fought that battle with Ramses III, and that whoever wrote this part of Abraham's in "the land of the Philistines" had to live well after Abraham's days, and after Isaac and Jacob were long dead, and centuries later, even after Moses was said to lead them out of Egypt. This is a huge error in the Bible that proves that it was written by man, and not God nor even Moses, and it is repeated many times after this. ***** 33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God. 34 And Abraham resided as an alien for many days in the land of the Philistines. Here is another error "...in the land of the Philistines". ***** There are four (4) major errors in chapter 21 of Genesis. Genesis 22 The Command to Sacrifice Isaac 1 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, 'Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' 2 He said, 'Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.' Note the most selective lack of questioning. He questioned whether or not Sodom and Gomorrah should be destroyed, but nary a word about killing his son for a burnt-offering. Unbelievable writing now that I look at it with a clear head. 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt-offering, and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away. 5 Then Abraham said to his young men, 'Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you.' 6 Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. 7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, 'Father!' And he said, 'Here I am, my son.' He said, 'The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?' 8 Abraham said, 'God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.' So the two of them walked on together. 9 When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Another note: Isaac questions were the lamb for the burnt-offering is, but doesn't question that he is obviously to be the burnt-offering? More bad writing. 10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, 'Abraham, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' 12 He said, 'Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.' 13 And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt-offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place 'The Lord will provide'; as it is said to this day, 'On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.' 15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, 'By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, Fundamentalists and the Bible 03 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, If by heaven it is meant the Universe, then this is an error. If it is to say that heaven is a place other than the Universe itself, there has been no mention of stars being in "heaven." In the Universe, there are more than a trillion stars, but the writers of the Old Testament didn't know this. Therefore, no stars, or a trillion stars, either way this is an error in the Bible. ***** 18 and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.' 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham lived at Beer-sheba. The Children of Nahor 20 Now after these things it was told Abraham, 'Milcah also has borne children, to your brother Nahor: 21 Uz the firstborn, Buz his brother, Kemuel the father of Aram, 22 Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel.' 23 Bethuel became the father of Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham's brother. 24Moreover, his concubine, whose name was Reumah, bore Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Maacah. There is one (1) major error in chapter 22 of Genesis. Genesis 23 Sarah's Death and Burial 1 Sarah lived for one hundred and twenty-seven years; this was the length of Sarah's life. 2 And Sarah died at Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. 3 Abraham rose up from beside his dead, and said to the Hittites, 4 'I am a stranger and an alien residing among you; give me property among you for a burying-place, so that I may bury my dead out of my sight.' 5 The Hittites answered Abraham, 6 'Hear us, my lord; you are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places; none of us will withhold from you any burial ground for burying your dead.' 7 Abraham rose and bowed to the Hittites, the people of the land. 8 He said to them, 'If you are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and entreat for me Ephron son of Zohar, 9 so that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as a possession for a burying-place.' 10 Now Ephron was sitting among the Hittites; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the Hittites, of all who went in at the gate of his city, 11 'No, my lord, hear me; I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it; in the presence of my people I give it to you; bury your dead.' 12 Then Abraham bowed down before the people of the land. 13 He said to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, 'If you only will listen to me! I will give the price of the field; accept it from me, so that I may bury my dead there.' 14 Ephron answered Abraham, 15 'My lord, listen to me; a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver—what is that between you and me? Bury your dead.' 16 Abraham agreed with Ephron; and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants. 17 So the field of Ephron in Machpelah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave that was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, passed 18 to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the Hittites, in the presence of all who went in at the gate of his city. 19 After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah facing Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan. 20 The field and the cave that is in it passed from the Hittites into Abraham's possession as a burying-place. This whole chapter is very suspect. The Hittites are a people known to history mostly as from Anatolia, or modern day Turkey. They are also noted in historically in biblical times for having fought a mighty battle with Egypt's Ramses II, the greatest of the Ramses Pharaohs, and probably the second most powerful Pharaoh in Egypt's history. As far as Hittites are known historically, they may have been in northern Canaan, but according to verse 19, this all took place near to Egypt where the Hittites were not known to exist. As a possibility, they may have been sons of a Heth as stipulated as being earlier in one of the genealogies, but calling them Hittites is suspect. This is most likely a major error by a writer who knew of the Hittites from the time of Ramses II, but why say that these people were Hittites? As mentioned, it is possible that there could have been a few Hittites, or a people similar and thus were called Hittites. I won't say that this is an error, major or probable, but it is very suspicious. This is just as FYI and a matter of being as objective as possible here and not being as the Fundamentalists are. Genesis 24 There is probably much that can be picked at in this chapter, but I think it would be picking, so I will skip this chapter and its voluminous 67 verses. For any not familiar with it and wondering, it is about how Abraham's servant went to find a suitable bride for Isaac. Genesis 25 Abraham Marries Keturah 1Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2 She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. 3 Jokshan was the father of Sheba and Dedan. The sons of Dedan were Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim. 4 The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. 5 Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. 6 But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, while he was still living, and he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastwards to the east country. First of all, Sarah was one hundred and twenty-seven (127) years old when she died. That made Abraham one hundred and thirty-seven (137) years old at least when he is said to have married Keturah, and probably more like one or two years older allowing for whatever grieving time was appropriate for them. While it is true that a man's sperm is viable regardless of age (health being good otherwise, that is, and faulty though it may be), it is possible for Keturah (if she wasn't past the age of about sixty or so when her eggs were no longer in her) to have seven more children. However, if we look at Abraham and consider that he was most likely one hundred and thirty-nine, and Keturah instantly became pregnant, Abraham had to be at least one hundred and forty-five (145) years old for the last child if she bore them one a year. Again, while it is possible, to believe that he lived that long, and that a woman would marry a man of one, it's not probable by any means. The Bible has a way of giving many of their early main men many years of life regardless of the harsh living conditions they had to endure (and pretty much the same for women). That this is all too hard to believe, I have to say that this is a probable error in the Bible at the least, and most likely a major one. ** Here, if we consider it with an objective eye, we will see an error that's easy to miss. Abraham "took another wife", not a concubine. When he died, he left everything to Isaac, and to the sons of his "concubines", he had given gifts and ran them off. However, the "wife" he took, "Keturah", bore him seven (7) children. There is absolutely no mention of those children being given anything, not even "gifts" as were given to the children of his "concubines". This is an error of omission in the Bible that gets by the casual read. ***** The Death of Abraham 7 This is the length of Abraham's life, one hundred and seventy-five years. 8 Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people. 9 His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, east of Mamre, 10 the field that Abraham purchased from the Hittites. There Abraham was buried, with his wife Sarah. 11 After the death of Abraham God blessed his son Isaac. And Isaac settled at Beer-lahai-roi. Ishmael's Descendants 12 These are the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's slave-girl, bore to Abraham. 13 These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, named in the order of their birth: Nebaioth, the firstborn of Ishmael; and Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15 Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. 16 These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages and by their encampments, twelve princes according to their tribes. 17 (This is the length of the life of Ishmael, one hundred and thirty-seven years; he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people.) 18 They settled from Havilah to Shur, which is opposite Egypt in the direction of Assyria; he settled down alongside all his people. Who were Ishmael's people? His mother was an Egyptian; and his father was Semitic; were the Egyptians considered "his people"? How can you be "gathered" to your people when you are the people or are split between two peoples, the Semitic one not as yet a people? Just wondering. I take it that verse 18 means Ishmael's children. The larger question is what does this have to do with the real supposed story of the Bible since so little information is given? The Birth and Youth of Esau and Jacob 19 These are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham was the father of Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan_aram, sister of Laban the Aramean. 21 Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his prayer, and his wife Rebekah conceived. 22 The children struggled together within her; and she said, 'If it is to be this way, why do I live?'* So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.' 24 When her time to give birth was at hand, there were twins in her womb. 25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they named him Esau. 26 Afterwards his brother came out, with his hand gripping Esau's heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them. 27 When the boys grew up, Esau was a skilful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, living in tents. 28 Isaac loved Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah loved Jacob. Esau Sells His Birthright 29 Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. 30 Esau said to Jacob, 'Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!' (Therefore he was called Edom.*) 31 Jacob said, 'First sell me your birthright.' 32 Esau said, 'I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?' 33 Jacob said, 'Swear to me first.'* So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. 34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright. There is one (1) major, and one (1) probable error in chapter 25 of Genesis. Genesis 26 Isaac and Abimelech 1 Now there was a famine in the land, besides the former famine that had occurred in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Gerar, to King Abimelech of the Philistines. Here is another error for Philistines are yet hundreds of years away from being. This is an error in the Bible. ***** 2 The Lord appeared to Isaac and said, 'Do not go down to Egypt; settle in the land that I shall show you. 3 Reside in this land as an alien, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfil the oath that I swore to your father Abraham. 4 I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring, Another "stars" error in the Bible. There are more than a trillion stars in the sky, and no where near that many Jews even if you count all that lived. ***** 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.' 6 So Isaac settled in Gerar. 7 When the men of the place asked him about his wife, he said, 'She is my sister'; for he was afraid to say, 'My wife,' thinking, 'or else the men of the place might kill me for the sake of Rebekah, because she is attractive in appearance.' 8 When Isaac had been there a long time, King Abimelech of the Philistines looked out of a window and saw him fondling his wife Rebekah. This is another Philistine error in the Bible. ***** 9 So Abimelech called for Isaac, and said, 'So she is your wife! Why then did you say, "She is my sister"?' Isaac said to him, 'Because I thought I might die because of her.' 10 Abimelech said, 'What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.' 11 So Abimelech warned all the people, saying, 'Whoever touches this man or his wife shall be put to death.' 12 Isaac sowed seed in that land, and in the same year reaped a hundredfold. The Lord blessed him, 13 and the man became rich; he prospered more and more until he became very wealthy. 14 He had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him. Again, there were no Philistines here at this time. ***** 15 (Now the Philistines had stopped up and filled with earth all the wells that his father's servants had dug in the days of his father Abraham.) Another mention of Philistines is another error in the Bible. ***** 16 And Abimelech said to Isaac, 'Go away from us; you have become too powerful for us.' 17 So Isaac departed from there and camped in the valley of Gerar and settled there. 18 Isaac dug again the wells of water that had been dug in the days of his father Abraham; for the Philistines had stopped them up after the death of Abraham; and he gave them the names that his father had given them. Once more there is a Philistine reference. ***** 19 But when Isaac's servants dug in the valley and found there a well of spring water, 20 the herders of Gerar quarrelled with Isaac's herders, saying, 'The water is ours.' So he called the well Esek, because they contended with him. 21 Then they dug another well, and they quarrelled over that one also; so he called it Sitnah. 22 He moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he called it Rehoboth, saying, 'Now the Lord has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.' 23 From there he went up to Beer-sheba. 24 And that very night the Lord appeared to him and said, 'I am the God of your father Abraham; do not be afraid, for I am with you and will bless you and make your offspring numerous for my servant Abraham's sake.' 25 So he built an altar there, called on the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there. And there Isaac's servants dug a well. 26 Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his adviser and Phicol the commander of his army. 27 Isaac said to them, 'Why have you come to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?' 28 They said, 'We see plainly that the Lord has been with you; so we say, let there be an oath between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you 29 so that you will do us no harm, just as we have not touched you and have done to you nothing but good and have sent you away in peace. You are now the blessed of the Lord.' 30 So he made them a feast, and they ate and drank. 31 In the morning they rose early and exchanged oaths; and Isaac set them on their way, and they departed from him in peace. 32 That same day Isaac's servants came and told him about the well that they had dug, and said to him, 'We have found water!' 33 He called it Shibah; therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba to this day. Esau's Hittite Wives 34 When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite; 35 and they made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah. We've been told that Isaac loved Esau best, yet we all know that he also wanted to give his "blessing" to Esau, and not to Jacob. We know full well that we'll soon see where Jacob's mother, Rebekah, fixed it so that Jacob would be seen as Esau when it was time to give the blessing, and all that went with it. The question here is how can Esau, with two Hittite wives that made life bitter for both Isaac and Rebekah, be the one most loved. How does one justify being the best loved with his making their lives bitter? It says that "they", not just the wives, made their lives bitter. This is such a sad piece of story telling, and thus an error in the Bible. ***** There are seven (7) major errors in chapter 26 of Genesis. The Founding Fathers and fundamentalists Leaving the Bible now, I take you to one of the real Founding Fathers of America, and some of his words. Why? [All the words in bold here are at my instance in order to highlight some of the important things that are said.] Fundamentalists proclaim that America is a nation special to God, and that all here should be subject to God's law as in Leviticus (and elsewhere in the Old Testament). This, they say, is how our Founding Fathers set up our country. Oh, really? Who are these Founding Fathers whom the fundamentalists proclaim to have started our country? They don't say, but maybe they don't have to. Though they normally don't mention them, what present day fundamentalists have in common with early European settlers in America—namely the Puritans—is a belief by some of these "Founding Fathers" in the Old Testament laws. Certainly many of today's fundamentalists, like the Puritans, have professed that we should be under God's laws as in the Old Testament. Should we be subject to those laws? Do you wish to be? More, do you wish to be under the rule of Inquisitors as in the Roman Catholic Church of days gone by? Thomas Jefferson, whom many consider one of our most Founding Fathers for his writing of some of our dearest papers on government, had this to say in some of his writings: ("Notes on the State of Virginia" (easily found on the Internet): "The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church ... Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren, who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. "Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third..." Fundamentalists and the Bible 03 [Kill Quakers? Just for being different in their beliefs? That's what many of todays fundamentalists want, though not all of them say so quite as explicitely.] "The Anglicans [read: Puritans] retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. "At the common law, heresy was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring, that nothing should be deemed heresy, but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the express and plain words of the scriptures." [Punishable by burning? And that being left to ecclesiastical judges? Oh, boy, this is just as bad as the Inquisition.] "This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom." [Note well his words: "religious slavery." Isn't that what many of the women of polygamists have their women under—religious slavery?] "...our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. "Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. "Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. [And thousands more in America would also be so treated as the Puritans, the Founding Fathers of present day fundamentalists, did in their day.] Also by Thomas Jefferson: From: Jefferson on Freedom, published by Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., 2011 From: Correspondence with the Danbury Baptist Association, Jan. 1, 1802 "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actins only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whle American people which declared that their legislature would 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wll of separation between Church and State." [A wall of separation, he says, one that allows freedom to believe as one will. As he said in his other writings, belief is a matter between a person and that person's god, and not the purview of some religionists.] Summation Thomas Jefferson's words are for us to think about with regard to religion, and those who attempt to force, or coerce us into accepting the desires of fundamentalists, that of being a nation ruled not by our constitution, but by laws of the Old Testament set forth by authors of very dubious provenance. Remember, we have no idea who really wrote most of the books of the Old Testament, and also the New Testament. Now I will continue with a summation of the words seen here from the book of Genesis. In the chapters cited here there are twenty-two (22) major errors, and one (1) probable error. In the previous two (2) essays, there were eighty-five (85) major errors, and twenty (20) probable errors. With those from this essay, we have so far found one hundred and seven (107) major errors, and twenty-one (21) probable errors, and we aren't even half way through the book of Genesis. These essays have one purpose, and that to prove that the bible is not error free, or inerrant as fundamentalists like to say, and the reason for that is to alleviate the trauma that many lesbians go through at the hands of preachers, family, and culture because they're told that being a lesbian is against God's law, and that law is without error as is all of the Bible, and is therefore to be believed and followed. They, lesbians, are bombarded by their bodies and their minds which continually tell them to look at, and to desire, other girls, or women as the case may be. I say as the case may be because many know at a very early age that they are extremely attracted to other girls, and for those, if they attend one of these hardcore fundamentalist churches, they hear over and over again how wicked they are for even thinking about another girl in that manner. "You'll burn in hell's fires eternally," they're told. "You're an abomination in God's sight and you must repent and turn to God to save your eternal soul from the devil's grasp." This, and more, they are told in the most horrible of voices: loud, strident, and very emphatically with face contorted to further express how dire their situation is if they don't repent and change their ways and thinking. These girls have been dragged to church every Sunday morning, and possibly every Sunday evening, and every Wednesday night, as well as to revival meetings where the voices from the pulpit are even louder, more forceful, for what is a revival for but to sharply push one and all to repent of their sins and revive the spirit of God in their lives. Traumatic? Humiliating? Destroying of self-esteem? Shaming? Confusing? Absolutely! Very destructive of their psyche? Definitely! Leading to many mental problems later when they are of age to be on their own, if not sooner? You bet. Making for destructive behavior in their minds? Way too often. Worse, it need never happen for what they are told, screamed at, bombarded with, are lies pure and simple! Yes, lies. To make it all worse, the lies are easily seen if one looks with an uncluttered mind. How's that, you may ask, that people believe as they do if it's a lie? It's called, in great part, "willful blindness," a mental thing that we inherit from being so often told that the bible is the perfect, without error, word of God, and it's not to be questioned, just obeyed, and when we do look, our minds by-pass what our eyes tell us is there just as if it weren't there. Sometimes we even know it's there, but refuse to give it credence. That happens often. Then again, there's pure ignorance. It is pushed and shoved down the throats of all who venture into one of those churches where things like this are preached: "It's a sin to be a lesbian. Shame on you." Or, "It's a sin to be one of those limp-wristed gays." Now it's also heaped on transgenders, transsexuals (those who have, or are in the process of changing their bodies from being one sex to the other sex), and doubtless to those born intersex. Do they also mention transvestites? Maybe, and maybe they consider it to be impolite to mention them openly as yet. With all of the confusion put in their minds, and all the constant, incessant, clamoring of their bodies in opposition to what is being shoved down their throats, the war raged in them is as if genocidal, wholly destructive of the person all the while that person still breathes and tries to be a part of society. What these preachers say though is wrong in just about every way. Why? Easy. When you do realize that you need not look at the bible as a holier than holy book, and realize that you need to pay attention to what is before your eyes, then you will notice the many, many errors in the bible. For instance, the first error is in the first book of the bible, Genesis, in the very first verse of the first chapter, and that is that on the supposed first day of creation when is said to have created the heavens and the earth. Earth created first? How ridiculous for our day, in light of our present knowledge. Today, we know that the earth is held in place by gravity, most of if from the Sun itself which has a stronger gravitational pull than the earth does. As we can see, some of these errors require a simple questioning such as the making of the earth before any stars are in place. A sort of willful blindness makes us not see that this is impossible, that they, the stars, of which our sun is one, must be there before the earth is in place. When something just doesn't seem right, we must allow our minds to acknowledge that, and to openly question it. The people who wrote the bible didn't know what is today known, and honestly, they probably weren't trying to be exact in what they wrote, for modern research such as these churches hate, have been finding that the Old Testament was most likely written in much of it's present form by the scholarly captives taken to Babylon in the 500s BCE. A careful look in the bible's Old Testament, as it is being presented here, will reveal, as in this essay, that someone knew about the Philistines and wrote them in as if already there when Abraham and Isaac, and others, were said to have lived. History, though, cites the Philistines as one of about five Sea Peoples who tried to invade Egypt in the days of Pharaoh Rameses III's time well after his father, Rameses II was dead (he the one most often thought of as the Pharaoh unnamed at the time of the so-called Exodus). Those Philistines, with the other Sea People, invaded Egypt about 1183 BCE, and it is the first time they are spoken of in history long after Abraham was said to have lived. Further, Rameses II was probably the second most powerful Pharaoh in Egypt's history, and held sway over all the land of Canaan when it was said in the bible that Moses, then Joshua, wandered, then fought for and defeated those in Canaan at the time of both Rameses the II and III. This is known history, and as certain as anything in history can be with many proofs unrelated to anything biblically said or taught. In other words, they not only didn't know about the bible, they didn't care about it, or what it might be saying, for to them, it was non-existent, and it wasn't. That information makes all of the so-called Laws of Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy fake, false, a fictive. If this is so, then the whole of the Old Testament as being God's word is a fiction. What was done was to use known history such as the Philistines, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, Alexander, his successors, and the Romans to write their so-called history around. In that sense, the bible is real and actual, but in the theology, it is creative fiction. Do I say then that there is no God? No way. I have no way of knowing if there is a God, or if there isn't any God. I do wonder at life, our existence, our purpose, if any, and how we really came to be. Wondering is good, it is wonderful, frankly, and it opens the mind up to questioning, and to learning. If there is a god, it is not the one described in the Bible. Back to these essays, is it right of any, intelligent as many of them are, to push for a fictitious writing to be a law we should all follow or be stoned outside of the community? How ridiculous! Why don't these politicians and preachers see the falsity of the bible? For many reasons, I'd say, not the least of them is power and greed. If you don't believe the greed part, go on the Internet and search preachers plus finances and you'll find many of them are filthy rich, and that from "believers" in what they preach, the hellfire and salvation. Many of these preachers have gone the way of the Popes of the Catholic Church. Many of them even adorn themselves similarly with fancy vestments that the Jesus of the bible would never have thought to wear. They have palaces where Jesus is said to have no place to lay his head and may likely have often slept on the ground if we are to believe the New Testament. Go ahead; check out what I've just said. In fact, check out everything I've said, particularly the bible itself and known and proven history. Quite frankly, Christian Fundamentalists are the same as the Taliban. Both seek to control people, especially women, with foolish doctrines that are supposedly of God, as well as control their sexuality. We know from researchers that much of what is preached as from Mohammed isn't in the Quran, and women weren't enjoined to be veiled by him. How women are mistreated and controlled by them is much as Christian Fundamentalists seek to do. There isn't much difference between them when the actions are looked at. One biblical quote that is worthy of being followed is one that is just about wholly ignored, and that is :"...ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." (Gospel of John, chapter 8, verse 32). Also worthy of being followed are words ascribed to the Apostle Paul, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalonians, chapter 5, verse 21). Quotes are from the King James version, but other bibles are the same. Check them out. These two verses are well worth following by everyone, and I encourage one and all to apply them to all that has been written here, and in my other two essays. Thank you for reading this essay. Please feel free to leave a comment. * This is an original essay copyright © by wistfall1. You may tell any lesbian in need of knowing the truth of the lies about this essay and where to find it for them to read, but no use in parts or snippets to discredit this work unless you have written permission from the author, wistfall1.