Contradictions in the Bible?

[pianistimo]

perhaps i should bow out before i get into a pope vs God thing - but imo, infallability should be next on the agenda for 'a somewhat more modern translation.'

if God was incarnate - wouldn't He be supreme and no pope could overrule Him?  what if...His Words WERE the 'bread of life.'  and that if anyone ate (understood) them that they would be like the samaritan woman and not have to rely on physical food and water but drink 'living waters.'

no pope has the ability to give this living water without the Word of God and the Word made flesh in Jesus Christ.  He is Master.  He said 'call no one father...'

and, yet - i am no judge of the pope.  just an observer.  comparing the Word with Catholic doctrine (which seems to change with whim instead of staying constant as the Word of God is).  luke 16:16 'the law and the prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.  but it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.'

the bible never taught the concepts of celibacy in the sense of the priesthood being celibate.  that is why there is so much sexual abuse.  is this godly?  do men believe the Church that promotes this?  i think that they should start with this kind of thing instead of limbo.  let the priests marry.  good grief.

[prometheus]

I find it hard that an atheist could be completely certain that there is no God. No matter how certain you think you are, I think it's impossible to never question yourself and ask "What if I'm wrong?" Does the thought never cross your mind? Are you not frightned by the fact that if you happen to be incorrect, you'd spend eternity suffering?

As for your theory. The argument is sometimes used when a believer of the bible has talked himself/herself into a corner one can only get out from using this argument. It is never used because religious people like the believe that. At least, I have never heard about it.

Well, if it is true we will never find out. You won't and I won't. It would be the same as saying the the whole universe was created two seconds ago.

And you can come up with much much more and much much stranger theories about what happened until the world magically became like it is now. I mean, maybe we live in Q's (the one from Star Trek) universe.  But Star Trek of course never happened. We made it up. But Q made us so that we made him up as a fictional person.

But, before Q knew what to put into the Star Trek episodes he made us make up he first played them out in 'real life'.

He created the universe of Star Trek and all Star Trek movies/episodes actually happened. Then he created the universe as it is right now a few seconds ago.

Star Trek also features other literature. Sherlock Holmes, for example. Maybe Q also played out those using real people controlled by him in his artificial universe.

Maybe he played out all holly and bollywood productions. I mean, you can come up with all the non-sense you will. To say that one of these non-sense theories is true and the others are not is stupid. If you want to consider one why shouldn't we consider all possiblities? The probablility of God that created the world a few seconds ago, or 6000 years ago, the way it appears to be is just as unlikely as any other crack-pot theory.

Now, how can you be so sure this never happened? How can you be so sure we don't like in a Matrix world, where we are actually dreaming the lives we experience while generating electricity for an alien race?

Atheists are just as sure as you are. And they have the same reasons.

There is nothing special about God. There are no special arguments. Disbelieving god is the same as disbelieving any theory you can come up with.

[steve_m]

h

[pianistimo]

agreed that fear is a poor method of understanding God. and, yet, He says that He (along with Jesus, our intercessor) alone decides who will be in the 'book of life.'  so - if our deeds matter - even if we don't attend church we should strive, imo, to be good people.  to follow matters of principle and the ideals of godly men.

the reason i say this is looking at luke 16:31 '...but he said to him, 'if they do not listen to moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.'

the transfer from OT to New was only the 10 commandments and the statutes which deal with any day to day living that would be compromised by something we do to others to hinder them.  something not just illegal from the biblical standpoint -but unethical and not legal in our own system. 

imo, ethics,love, morality - are all containable and controllable things.  if we have control over them (as we do our tongue - once in a while for me) then we will have an ability to at least 'give an account' of our time on earth whether athiest or not - at the judgement.  i believe the judgement is real.  Jesus saves - but He also says to build on the foundation he gave us with something better than straw. 

[pianolist]

I can just imagine all the people who are decidedly atheist, who believe that when you die, you cease to exist, waking up in hell after they die and saying "You've got to be f**** kidding me!"

It's far more likely that the religious ones will cease to exist after they die, just like the rest of us, and so will never realise that there is no heaven or hell.

[pianistimo]

you must be a beatles fan?!

[prometheus]

Ok, I can't keep track of everyones religious views.

No atheist should exclude the possiblity that god exists. I mean, a scientist can't exclude anything. You can't disprove things. You propose theories and try to refute them/test them.

and atheist, since it isn't a real religion) do you feel that it's a little bit risky? Going back to "What if God does exist?" Are you really so sure that he doesn't,

How can I account for something like that? I can come up with many things I should believe that I may regret if I use enough imagination.

If god were to be real I would like to hear her arguments for punishing me for being a reaonsable person and not just having faith in something that is not worn out by reality.
I mean, with all the strange things some christians say why should I account for my actions?

Do you worry about what may happen to you in the afterlife if the real god turns out to be Manco Capac? Or Enlil. Or something we haven't even invented.

Ooh, and also. I think I would dislike heaven and hell equally. So it wouldn't matter.

[pianolist]

Ooh, and also. I think I would dislike heaven and hell equally.

Imagine all those harps. Millions and millions and millions of them. Gazillions. All either out of tune, or else tuned so perfectly to each other that they would leave no room for inspiration. Perhaps God was conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra in His former life.

[prometheus]

It doesn't matter if you have to listen to a perfectly tuned harp for ever without any reason to listen for even one second or a totally out of tune harp for ever without any reason to listen for even one second. After a billion years they will both be equally annoying. And then you still need to listen to them for infinity.

[pianowolfi]

I do still believe in God and the existence of Jesus

Ohh that's astonishing to me, i didn't know that yet. So be careful, fellow religious freaks, don't destroy the remain of Thal's belief! 

[timothy42b]

perhaps i should bow out before i get into a pope vs God thing - but imo, infallability should be next on the agenda for 'a somewhat more modern translation.'

You can't bow out.  All fundies get a thrill out of bashing Catholics, who were the original Christians.  And of course they've got some things screwed up over the years, but do you think there is any denomination that doesn't?  

Now here's the thing about biblical interpretation.  Tell me if this makes any sense.  In the year 2006, is a Christian geologist more likely to find a new oil deposit?  If you were a big oil company, would you hire a Christian geologist over somebody else, because he has some special God granted secret knowledge?  

No, of course not, that's obviously silly.  Why, then, is it not obvious that the same was true in the days of the apostles, and the days of the prophets?  These were shepherds, farmers, fishermen, tentmakers.  They didn't know even the science of their time, and there is no reason to believe they were granted any secret inside knowledge.  At best they had some extra insight into matters of faith - but clearly they struggled with the same issues we deal with today in our modern congregations.  All you have to do is read a few of Paul's letters to understand that.  And Paul claims that Peter, who actually met Christ, got it all wrong, and he (who didn't meet Him) had to correct him.  

So why pianistimo and others like her want to ascribe magical powers to the whole book and everybody in it is beyond me.  Not to pick on pp, she didn't invent this approach, but certainly buys into it.  

But really, my perspective is not a negative one.  It means we can reach just as deep an understanding as was available to the disciples, and through the same methods.  And with the same uncertainties and difficulties.  

[timothy42b]

It doesn't matter if you have to listen to a perfectly tuned harp for ever without any reason to listen for even one second or a totally out of tune harp for ever without any reason to listen for even one second. After a billion years they will both be equally annoying. And then you still need to listen to them for infinity.

You are right, that is indeed a chilling thought.

However what you don't know is that Hell contains bagpipes. 

[asyncopated]

if God was incarnate - wouldn't He be supreme and no pope could overrule Him?

Ah ha, but that's where you got it wrong.  The pope is the one person on earth who has god's mobile number.  He doesn't really make the decisions.  He calls the big cheese, and god tells him what to do, so he must be infallable.  Oh and he can't make a wrong decision cos, god has his mobile too and would tell him if he did.

the bible never taught the concepts of celibacy in the sense of the priesthood being celibate.  that is why there is so much sexual abuse.  is this godly?  do men believe the Church that promotes this?  i think that they should start with this kind of thing instead of limbo.  let the priests marry.  good grief.

However, carnal knowledge is intrinsicly an unclean act, certainly distastful, perhaps even sinful.  How could you wish someone to study matters beyond the flash to be constantly tempted by it?  I certainly believe that celibacy it is a good thing for men of the cloth.  BTW, there are interesting examples, thinking of our dear ted here (may he burn in hell) where marriage seems to be a good cover for indecencies. 

 "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts." (Romans 13:14 NKJV)

 "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh." (Galatians 5:16 NKJV)

"Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."  (Galatians 5:24 NIV)

"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:11-13    NKJV)

"Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God." (1 Peter 4:1-2    NKJV)

what if...His Words WERE the 'bread of life.'  and that if anyone ate (understood) them that they would be like the samaritan woman and not have to rely on physical food and water but drink 'living waters.'

Now, now, man being able to talk directly to god is a rediculous idea.  I am quite appalled by the number of paganised sects out there purporting to expound the christian faith.  Surely the correct doctrine must be a pre-Lutheran one, where the people are meant to go to a servant of the church for minor matters, or pray to saints for intercession on major ones. 

After all, how could common man understand, what is written in the bible, not having been schooled in theological argument and the true tenants of the holy church.  Bringing god directly to man diminishes the meaning given by absolution, one key pillar of the catholic faith.  You must seek absolution and you must repent your sins.  You can't just go to god and say, "I'm sorry, i won't do it again", that just won't do.  You need to go for confession and profest both your sins and your faith to someone who understands the severity of your indescretion; and who will than prescribe an appropriate penance, which could be anything from self-flegellation to saying a number of hail marys.   Only then, can you again accept holy communion -- the body and blood of christ and celebrate the eucharist with a clear concience. 

[ahinton]

You are right, that is indeed a chilling thought.

However what you don't know is that Hell contains bagpipes. 

Oh, NO! If true, this means that, as a Scotsman, I therefore have to try to do something to avoid having to go there after all. I'm sure that susanistimo will give me a (long) list. But how do you know that it is true? Have you been on a vacation there? In fact, it also occurs to me to ask if the reason you didn't get to Jonathan Powell's recital at The Warehouse was because you took it upon yourself to have a day trip there on the way back to Le Fin des Graves from the Shetlands...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Ohh that's astonishing to me, i didn't know that yet. So be careful, fellow religious freaks, don't destroy the remain of Thal's belief! 

I have no problem believing in God or Jesus, it is the Bible and the idiots who use it to try and prove science wrong that gets on my boobies.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Why was Jesus crucified?

Crucifiction was a Roman punishment, and Pilate washed his hands of Jesus.

Thal

[pianistimo]

Pilate attempted to hand him back to the jews in john 18:31 when the jews had no real substantial evidence of Jesus being a criminal.  'take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.'  the Jews said to him, 'we are not permitted to put anyone to death,' that the Word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.  He prophecied His own type of death in Matt. 20:18

'behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and will deliver Him to the gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up.'

Jesus irritated the Jews by saying that His father Was God.  implying He was God and that they were under him since He is King of all.  Luke 23:1 was an implied sin - of also forbidding to pay taxes - but Jesus actually said 'pay unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's'  so He did not break any laws.

but, in the truest sense of the Word - 'all we, like sheep, have gone astray...' so we all have been responsible for his death - in that we are sinners.  the Jews have no more responsibility than anyone else - because Christ prophecied even before He lived on the earth through the prophet Isaiah - who also prophecied that He would be put to death for our transgressions.  It was a preordained thing - so to speak.

why?  I don't know.  God is God.  He pretty much does as He pleases.  i do know that if we all were aware of no penalty for sin - sin would have no meaning.

[pianistimo]

judas iscariot probably had a bit to play in all this, too - although i wonder sometimes of the great mercy of God and how that because it was prophecied to happen - that someone had to be the bad guy.  judas apparently sold the whereabouts of Jesus because certain of the scribes and pharisees had been after his location for a while.  they didn't need a big reason.  they just wanted Him dead.

mark 14:57 says that after He was delivered up - false testimony was said 'we heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without human hands.'

of course, they couldn't fully comprehend what in the world HE was saying.  but, He meant - (not literal destroying) a figurative thing!  that He would destroy the old covenant and replace it with the new.  a peaceful overturn of animal sacrifices for sin - to a human once for all.  why?  i don't know.  God is God.  what He decides goes.  when the asked 'are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' he said 'I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'  So they really became angry then - as He was claiming to Be God.  they called it blasphemy.

[thalbergmad]

Pilate attempted to hand him back to the jews in john 18:31 when the jews had no real substantial evidence of Jesus being a criminal.  'take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.'  the Jews said to him, 'we are not permitted to put anyone to death,' that the Word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.  He prophecied His own type of death in Matt. 20:18

If the Jews had no evidence against him, the Romans had even less, so it is strange that Jesus was crucified. This was a Roman punishment.

Was not stoning the usual Jewish punishment?. Why was Jesus not stoned to death instead?.

"we are not allowed to put anyone to death", surely that is not correct.

What was Jesus's crime anyway?

[thalbergmad]

of course, they couldn't fully comprehend what in the world HE was saying. 

I do suffer from the same problem with you sometimes.

Thal

[pianistimo]

they had a little 'prisoner exchange.'  it was just a sort of cruel joke that he be 'counted among the transgressors' as it says in isaiah - even though He never committed a crime - unless in Roman law they called it insubordination to governments or something.  also, Christ was talking about a 'kingdom' and that probably didn't really bother pilate because he was a thinking man - and thought that the small following of Jesus would not result in any sort of uprising  - because Jesus was a peaceful person.  also, he said he found no guilt in Jesus.

even the slave of the high priest - when He was being obtained by swords and clubs - was healed when his ear was cut off by a disciple.  the ear was reattached by Him and 'made whole.'  Christ treated his enemies with kindness and respect.

luke 23 mentions that even herod - after hearing 'he stirs up the people, teaching all over judea, starting from galilee, even as far as this place'  - thought that Jesus was innocent.  verse 14 -15 'pilate said to them, 'you brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him.  No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him.'

He was going to be punished and released - but they kept calling out 'crucify Him, crucify Him'  - so he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but delivered Jesus to their will.'  Jesus Christ - knowing that He was intended from the beginning to be a high priest and a King - wasn't phased by ridicule and contempt and just made himself a willing sacrifice.  He was silent.  that must have been hard - being that He was truly innocent. 

i still can't really fathom the love of God - but i try.  He died for all of us - because we sin.  and the jews are no more at fault for asking for his crucifixion as we are.  He was born to redeem the world.  one of the more beautiful songs i have ever heard at church (at my husband's) was 'mary did you know...'  it goes something like - mary did you know that you baby boy would someday - and then each aspect of what He did for us - and at the end that she 'kissed the face of God.' 

[pianistimo]

here's the lyrics to 'mary did you know' by reba mcentire.  if there is any piece of music that touches a person - especially at this time of year - it would be this one:

www.lyricsfreak.com/r/reba+mcentire/mary+did+you+know_20114568.html

[ahinton]

here's the lyrics to 'mary did you know' by reba mcentire.  if there is any piece of music that touches a person - especially at this time of year - it would be this one:

www.lyricsfreak.com/r/reba+mcentire/mary+did+you+know_20114568.html

You mention - and provide a URL for - the "lyrics" alone but we don't know what the music's like; that said, if it's even half as bad as the "lyrics", I'd feel like giving my right arm never to hear it. At least the original "Mary had a little lamb" has the two virtues of brevity and not pretending to be anything more than a nursery rhyme - and the "little lamb" is not the "Lamb of God, either (which makes it more approachable for non-believers as well as believers among children). This positively nauseating doggerel, on the other hand ("when will its perpetrator attain the age of six?", I try not to be bothered to wonder), is just a piece of jejune and sickly sentimentality that one might even take for nonsense verse were it not for the fact that Mr Lear's examples in that medium - being SO much more entertaining and well crafted - are so obviously and delightfully the real thing. It's sloppily written, with - among other things - the most callous disregard for decent rhyme scheme and metre (note, for example, that "the great I am" at the end has no cognisance of "the great iamb") and, if taken literally (like some people tend to take the Bible, as you may have noticed), it could be interpreted as unwarrantably patronising to "Mary" in its suggestion that she knows almost nothing about anything until this penny-dreadful poet manqué comes along and "tells" her by means of posing rhetorical questions; frankly, if I were "Mary", I'd be sorely tempted to strangle the little b××××r - and the poet manqué, too! In short, it's a Mc-entirely awful example of the kind of verse substitute that should come with a free brown paper bag for the reader to place before him/her while reading it. Dear me! Let's paraphrase a little:

"Reba tries her hand at verse;
She really didn't ought'er (i.e. "ought to");
Pianistimo - to make it worse
Has sadly gone and caught 'er.
Walk on water? save our daughter?
Are you kidding? - never!
He'll be led like Lamb to slaughter
By his followers ever."

Not ALL of His followers, of course, but you get my drift...

Not for nothing is this infantilistic twittering to be found on a site called "lyricsfreak", methinks; you'd surely have to stretch a point well beyond reality or reason to be able to describe this pathetic rubbish as a "lyric". Who on earth do you suppose it is intended for?

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

Mary did you know?

Of couse she bl**dy did - the angel told her.....

[ahinton]

Mary did you know?

Of couse she bl**dy did - the angel told her.....

Well, not according to the spare (Mcen)tire, it would seem; if only the non-rebarbative "Reba" had at least recognised that Mary might have known rather more than she suspected, this piece of shameful verbiage could mercifully have been infinitely shorter!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

When you become an atheist (I know there isn't really an official process of "becoming" and atheist, since it isn't a real religion) do you feel that it's a little bit risky?

Atheism is all too often discussed as though it "isn't a real religion". Of course it is not a religion of itself - and I suspect that the negativity associated with it has a lot to do with the word itself, which signifies a negation of belief, rather as "atonal" is seen as negation of traditional tonality. I think that even Pianistimo would agree (and one of her recent posts would appear to imply this) that it is more important to consider atheists in terms of what it is that they believe in instead of God, rather than that they are merely a group of people that don't believe in Him.

One may presume that people "become" atheists only if they have lost or otherwise abandoned their belief in God, so there is indeed no such thing as an "official process" involved here.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

If the Jews had no evidence against him, the Romans had even less, so it is strange that Jesus was crucified. This was a Roman punishment.

Was not stoning the usual Jewish punishment?. Why was Jesus not stoned to death instead?.

"we are not allowed to put anyone to death", surely that is not correct.

What was Jesus's crime anyway?

The difficulty here is in assuming historical reliability of a document written during a war. 

Clearly the gospels are written in such a way to portray Pilate as far better than he was.  Pilate was a historical figure, and there are roman records available.  He executed first and asked questions later, and in fact was such a brutal administrator that he was eventually recalled to Rome and demoted.

Crucifixion is a roman punishment reserved for insurgents, and as occupiers they were certainly not going to risk a potential uprising getting out of hand, so of course they would kill anyone they saw as a threat.  The Jews have been blamed all this time for something they didn't have much to do with.  But these scriptures were written during or after the real rebellion (66 - 70 AD) and it would have been dangerous to point fingers at Romans after the war was lost. 

To even consider this interpretation you have to accept that human factors influenced the humans who wrote it, and many including I suspect pp will be unwilling to do so.

And of course you have to buy the historical basis of the outline of the events, which is far from certain.  Was there a trial?  Dunno.  Was there a Jesus?  I believe so, but the evidence is far from overwhelming. 

[ahinton]

The difficulty here is in assuming historical reliability of a document written during a war. 

Clearly the gospels are written in such a way to portray Pilate as far better than he was.  Pilate was a historical figure, and there are roman records available.  He executed first and asked questions later, and in fact was such a brutal administrator that he was eventually recalled to Rome and demoted.

Crucifixion is a roman punishment reserved for insurgents, and as occupiers they were certainly not going to risk a potential uprising getting out of hand, so of course they would kill anyone they saw as a threat.  The Jews have been blamed all this time for something they didn't have much to do with.  But these scriptures were written during or after the real rebellion (66 - 70 AD) and it would have been dangerous to point fingers at Romans after the war was lost. 

To even consider this interpretation you have to accept that human factors influenced the humans who wrote it, and many including I suspect pp will be unwilling to do so.

And of course you have to buy the historical basis of the outline of the events, which is far from certain.  Was there a trial?  Dunno.  Was there a Jesus?  I believe so, but the evidence is far from overwhelming. 

Very sanguinely and pragmatically put, if I may say so and, in so writing, you have highlighted the principal problem with those parts of the posts on this and directly related subjects that seek to elevate bald statement above real discussion.

Far too little about far too much of the history here is yet certain and, even with the best will in the world and the best archaeologial and other technological facilities and researchers that mankind can produce, it remains unlikely that a situation will ever arise where all the relevant questions can be answered unequivocally and supported in full by inalienable evidence.

Like yourself (and Thal, I think), to doubt that Jesus Christ actually existed as an important historical figure on the stage of his time seems to me to be untenable, but that factor is only the beginning of the many and varied questions that simply cannot be answered fully and with certainty.

Furthermore, it seems to me that many (if not all) of those who prefer to espouse (I nearly wrote "hide behind") blind faith rather than to seek after truth also tend to forget - or at least minimise the significance of the fact - that any research into the life of Jesus Christ and his contemporaries will not merely hope to reveal facts but also arrive at conclusions which must be appreciated for their relevance to that time - i.e. two millennia ago - and that there is a grave danger in the over-simplified approach adopted by the blind faith côterie in striving to persuade us all that what happened in Christ's time holds good in every particular in all subsequent times, irrespective of the myriad political, social and other human changes that have been wintessed ever since. In other words, the blind faith people often tend to codify their faith as though all truth is universally applicable at all times; this seems nonsensical, simply because humanity is just not like that - it develops and always will do so as long as the human race continues to exist - yet those with this blind faith are themselves members of the human race! It seems rather bizarre to me...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

timothy comes up with unusual interpretations of history.  sort of 'history rewritten according to timothy42b.'  why would people who study the bible and agree that the history of events is corroborated in too many places to say it never existed.  even the roman centurion - after Jesus Death agreed ' this truly WAS the Son of God.'

do you know one of his reasons (besides seeing an innocent man die and be at peace) - in matthew 27: 51 unexplainably 'and behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth SHOOK:  and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had falled asleep were raised; and coming OUT OF THEIR TOMBS after His ressurrection they entered the holy city and appearred to many.'

the centurion was actually quite afraid at this point and the things that were happening caused this hardened roman soldier to agree 'Truly this was the Son of God.'  this article among with others confirms that Jerusalem isn't built upon much hard rock - but debris!  www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3980139   there was a major earthquake (after three hours of unusal darkness) at his death AND three days later at his ressurrection!  keep scrolling down after first couple paragraphs.

regarding Mary - I'm sure she knew well enough what the angel told her - but the emotions of raising a Son to be ressurrected to God as the 'firstborn of many brethren' implies that He won't be the last to be ressurrected and changed.  this causes Christians to have awe and respect for Him to overcome death.

[ahinton]

timothy comes up with unusual interpretations of history.

I do not consider that timothy42b has done anything of the kind; it seems to me that what he has instead done is quite sensibly to call into question the amount that we know for sure about the history of those times and the extent of the useful conclusion that we can draw from such knowledge today; as such, what he wrote is far from any "sort of 'history rewritten according to timothy42b.'"

why would people who study the bible and agree that the history of events is corroborated in too many places to say it never existed.

No one in his/her right mind would claim that none of the historical events that are partially and at times somewhat conflictingly reported in what we have of the Bible "ever existed" - i.e. took place; that would be entirely fatuous. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, however, as we all know - and even if our understanding of the relevant sectors of Middle Eastern history from shortly before the birth of Christ until the last of those Biblical accounts was completed is consideraly more than merely "a little knowledge", it remains - as timothy42b implies - far too scant on which to base an entire faith.

even the roman centurion - after Jesus Death agreed ' this truly WAS the Son of God.'

No. What is reported as that centurion's statement - even if correctly reported as such - is that centurion's opinion, which he shared with some people but not with everyone, even at the time.

Susan - there are several aspects of historical reportage for which you frequently seem less than willing to make allowances, in that not every chronicler
1. displays the same level of personal bias and opinion (if any at all)
2. interprets events, remarks, etc. in precisely the same manner
3. has the same literary style or gifts of expression
4. will remember all details of events and remarks as well when recapturing them years later as would be the case when reporting immediately after the event.
You read newspapers and watch news on television; you will surely have observed the first three of these very anomalies at work whenever you read more than one style of newspaper or see more than one television news channel on the same day. When you add to all this the political, societal, scientific and all other changes in human history the world over in the past two millennia, not to mention all the linguistic and interpretative developments during that time, it should be obvious to you, as it is to many others, that some things in the Bible are not always what they may seem; in addition to all this (as has already been observed), the Bible never had an overall editor-in-chief and was not originally conceived as a multi-author symposium, so it is inevitably lacking to some degree in co-ordination and structure and (as Thal has observed) has not even come down to us in a form that can justly be regarded as complete in any case.

None of the above is intended to undermine the Bible's credibility as a work of literature - merely to try to put it into a more sensible, practical and credible perspective.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

but, evidence is often supressed!  that is the way with noah's ark on mt. ararat.  noone was allowed to go up.  very few people have had access.  same with the shroud of turin and other artifacts.  only a few scholars get to look at and examine - so that it will survive intact today.  (perhaps the ships has broken into many pieces now - but it is interesting to hear of several people who actually saw and brought back pieces of the wood to examine the time and how it was made.  nasa, et. al - was keeping records of an 'anomoly' on mt. ararat).

so, we listen for each archeological piece of evidence to come to light through scholarship.  there is nothing in science, or geology, or history - to condemn the exact times and placements of historical events of the bible.  the bible has never been disproven.

you see in matthew - exact rulers of the romans were mentioned - now we have evidence even of PONTIAS PILATE and his exact name and rulership of the area in which Jesus was crucified.  this was discovered in the 1980's - i think i read. 

was this front page news?  of course NOT!

but we know the event was CATACLYSMIC.  the entire calendar began again - because everyone believed at the time.  even the ROMANS who were in charge of the calendar.  our calendar is now 2006 years (approximately - as time is approximate in death and ressurection - accounting for 31 AD as the true death of JEsus).  and, if it wasn't 31 AD then surely 32 AD when a major catastrophic earthquake was recorded on April 11, 32 AD

[prometheus]

but, evidence is often supressed!  that is the way with noah's ark on mt. ararat.  noone was allowed to go up.  very few people have had access

Now isn't that just convenient. This way you can always believe the Ark is on this mountain while it is never refuted.

[thalbergmad]

The difficulty here is in assuming historical reliability of a document written during a war. 

Clearly the gospels are written in such a way to portray Pilate as far better than he was.  Pilate was a historical figure, and there are roman records available.  He executed first and asked questions later, and in fact was such a brutal administrator that he was eventually recalled to Rome and demoted.

Crucifixion is a roman punishment reserved for insurgents, and as occupiers they were certainly not going to risk a potential uprising getting out of hand, so of course they would kill anyone they saw as a threat.  The Jews have been blamed all this time for something they didn't have much to do with.  But these scriptures were written during or after the real rebellion (66 - 70 AD) and it would have been dangerous to point fingers at Romans after the war was lost. 

To even consider this interpretation you have to accept that human factors influenced the humans who wrote it, and many including I suspect pp will be unwilling to do so.

And of course you have to buy the historical basis of the outline of the events, which is far from certain.  Was there a trial?  Dunno.  Was there a Jesus?  I believe so, but the evidence is far from overwhelming. 

Thank you so much for a response that i can understand. Far better than paragraphs of nothing.

It is the accuracy of this book and the people who follow it blindly that fascinate me.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

but, evidence is often supressed!  that is the way with noah's ark on mt. ararat.  noone was allowed to go up.  very few people have had access.  same with the shroud of turin and other artifacts.  only a few scholars get to look at and examine - so that it will survive intact today.  (perhaps the ships has broken into many pieces now - but it is interesting to hear of several people who actually saw and brought back pieces of the wood to examine the time and how it was made.  nasa, et. al - was keeping records of an 'anomoly' on mt. ararat).

so, we listen for each archeological piece of evidence to come to light through scholarship.  there is nothing in science, or geology, or history - to condemn the exact times and placements of historical events of the bible.  the bible has never been disproven.

you see in matthew - exact rulers of the romans were mentioned - now we have evidence even of PONTIAS PILATE and his exact name and rulership of the area in which Jesus was crucified.  this was discovered in the 1980's - i think i read. 

was this front page news?  of course NOT!

but we know the event was CATACLYSMIC.  the entire calendar began again - because everyone believed at the time.  even the ROMANS who were in charge of the calendar.  our calendar is now 2006 years (approximately - as time is approximate in death and ressurection - accounting for 31 AD as the true death of JEsus).  and, if it wasn't 31 AD then surely 32 AD when a major catastrophic earthquake was recorded on April 11, 32 AD

You are correct, evidence is sometimes supressed, but it works both ways. The church has done a fair bit in their time.

I read a book years ago about Noahs ark. A group of scientists had access for months to carry out an investigation and came back with no evidence at all. The Turks stopped it as they were destroying what was left and i dont blame them. Anyway, the so called Ark was miles away from Mt ararat where the Bible said it ended up.

The Turin Shroud has been examined and carbon dated and has been shown to be a 13th Century fraud. Many Churches and places of worship have had so called "religious relics", it kept the people flooding in. Hitler managed to steal the "spear of destiny" but it did not do him any good. There even exits "St James's Foreskin" and you can test that one if you want.

There is evidence, for places and people mentioned in the Bible, but not for what actually happened. Just because you show that Pilate existed, does not prove what he did and the same goes for Jesus. This is why, it was NOT FRONT PAGE NEWS, as it shows nothing. If a man was Crucified and rose from the dead, surely it would have been FRONT PAGE NEWS and recorded in 1,000's of ancient documents, but it was not.

You have obviously done a little research on these subjects to try to prove the authenticety of the Bible, but have you done any reading that does the opposite, or is that just going to be ignored as work of the Devil.

For proving the events in Genises, you must read Legend by David Rohl. He locates Noahs ark and the garden of Eden. It is years since i read it, but i remember being utterly engrossed.

I like to read evidence both for and against to formulate my own ideas.

Thal

[pianowelsh]

When God speaks men tremble.  When God doesnt speak men tremble more!

[thalbergmad]

When God speaks men tremble.  When God doesnt speak men tremble more!

Do not understand. Please explain.

Thanks

Thal

[ahinton]

Do not understand. Please explain.

Thanks

Thal

Whatever makes you assume that these two bizarre statements admit of anything remotely resembling what you and I and most others here could possibly recognise as explanation?

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

I guess it tries to put forward that adopting a delusional world view is the lesser of two evils. Or that people are even more uneasy at having no explenation at all than having an explenation made up by bronze age people about a terrible unpleasant all-powerful and jealous god.

[pianistimo]

if He were so unpleasant, we'd all be dead long ago.  but, He, in infinite love - promised that the flood which covered the entire earth (and yes - the ark still sits on mt. ararat as nasa has pics of an anomoly on that exact mountain) would never be flooded again.  if He couldn't control his anger - we'd be smaller than smushed ants to Him.

how can Christians explain faith in scientific terms.  how can scientists agree that there should be any shred of faith in studying science?  and yet, the two are not separated really - only that science is lacking one thing!  the study of things we do not see yet.  if you can't see it - you can't study it.  therefore it is a LIMITATION.  Christians see this as proof that God is supreme.  that He alone has complete knowledge of the universe.  job, in the bible was aware of this and learned to humble himself even when he was more humble than his friends!  God shared more knowledge and blessing with job AFTER his personal crisis.

as i see it, personal crisis often brings one closer to God.  you see first hand God involvement with your personal life.  that He cares what happens to you now and also in the future.  your eternal life!  a mustard seed of faith is a very small bit of faith - but enough to move mountains.  enough to be SAVED!  enough to escape the terrible things that are coming to this earth.  we see daily the changes that are occurring in wars, in rumors of wars, in disease, famine, pollution, global warming.  it's not going to get better. science is not going to save you.  only belief in Jesus Christ and awaiting His return.

also, in response to asyncopated - i do believe that Jesus Christ is an intercessor on OUR behalf without a priest in between.  after all, if we needed a priest - he would tell us to pray outwardly - but, He tells us to go into our homes or closets (somewhere private) and pray to him there.  that He hears us wherever we are  - in whatever situation - and that we do not have to wait to see a priest or have any sort of confessional.  that our sins are between us and Him.  King David said 'against Thee only have I sinned, done evil in Thy sight....' 

[thalbergmad]

if He were so unpleasant, we'd all be dead long ago.  but, He, in infinite love - promised that the flood which covered the entire earth (and yes - the ark still sits on mt. ararat as nasa has pics of an anomoly on that exact mountain) would never be flooded again.  if He couldn't control his anger - we'd be smaller than smushed ants to Him.
 

Infinite love eh.

Where was your God when the planes smashed into the twin towers?

NASA has pics of an anomoly on Mt Ararat and anomoly is the correct word. If the Ark really does rest 6,000 feet up on a mountain, where did all the water come from to get it that high up?

[ahinton]

Infinite love eh.

Where was your God when the planes smashed into the twin towers?

Not piloting either of them, that's for sure...

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

how can scientists agree that there should be any shred of faith in studying science?  and yet, the two are not separated really - only that science is lacking one thing!  the study of things we do not see yet.  if you can't see it - you can't study it.  therefore it is a LIMITATION. 

I'm not against this statement.  This is certianly loosely correct.  I just want to clarify

The scientific method requries firstly that something is measurable, with equipment.  This is the first important thing.  The second is that it is reproducible.  That is we can measure something, create the same conditions and measure it again, expecting it to be almost the same.  And thirdly, if we set some kind of standard of measurement, anyone can perform the same test and agree (largely) on the results.

I would not call it a LIMITATION so much as a practicality.  This just prevents us from discussing about little pink elephants pushing invisible objects around. 

also, in response to asyncopated - i do believe that Jesus Christ is an intercessor on OUR behalf without a priest in between.  after all, if we needed a priest - he would tell us to pray outwardly - but, He tells us to go into our homes or closets (somewhere private) and pray to him there.  that He hears us wherever we are  - in whatever situation - and that we do not have to wait to see a priest or have any sort of confessional.  that our sins are between us and Him.  King David said 'against Thee only have I sinned, done evil in Thy sight....'

I don't accept the argument that priest are an in between -- I don't believe that you fully  understand the role of the church.

They are part of the ecclesiastical order that facilitates bring us closer to christ.  They share in one priesthood of christ through holy orders and are empowered to offer the same ultimate sacrifice that jesus gave us.  The body and blood of christ for the atonement of our sins. 

After all, the holy mother church, and to a lesser extent, the papacy was mandated by christ himself as attested to by

Matt.16:18-19: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Apart from the word of the lord, many of the reponsiblities that a priest shares with us cannot be replaced, such as the baptism and holy communion,  which are but two of the seven holy sacraments.

[pianistimo]

did you know scientists used an old mine shaft somewhere's in the midwest to go a certain  distance below ground to study thermonuclear fusions that they believe happen on the sun.  and yet, for all our knowledge of neutrinos - scientists still can't figure out why so few are emanating (according to their theories of the number of nuclear fusions that happen on the sun) from the sun.  there should be, according to scientists - a lot more neutrinos coming out. 

at this point - i suddenly bow out and wait for your response because i have neither studied neutrinos - nor even know if i am spelling the word correctly.  and - yet - i have to wonder if science will ever be able to study the sun - which is completely observable and yet hard to measure because it's so hot.

and, yes - ahinton - i'm really hot too.  of course hot (in sun and people terms) is a purely speculatively measured thing.  i mean - if someone says 'the sun is really hot.'  everyone would agree.  but, exactly how hot is it?  can we give a definate temperature - of the CORE.  i mean - some scientists go and say 'oh, it's thus and such degrees.'  well, i remember reading this in highschool and saying to myself 'this is **'  they don't know how hot the sun is.  how could they?  they'd be burned up before the temperature gauge had a chance to register.

now, women are similar - i mean if you are married, you can approximately gauge how hot your mate is by the number of big O's they can reach in 5 minutes.  but, what if they burn out like the sun because of too many fusions.  maybe you should save what is left and count the fusions less as a measure of hotness and more as a measure of anomolies and just leave it at that (like nasa).  i think women gauge hotness on a different plane  - perhaps planet.  today i saw a 'hot' guy waiter at the restaurant my husband and i went to - but he did not affect me personally because i was with the man i love.  so, all his hotness didn't really make me personally affected.  now, this could not be said for a man with a bit of sophistication like the 'take home chef' which i watched last night - making a desert pear soup.  i had to shut the door - so my husband would not be jealous.  but, even then - i took into account that this man - despite his good looks and cooking - could not even come near the good cooking that my husband has done.  although i have to admit that adding cayanne to practically everything he cooked (this is the take home chef) - made me wonder if he was overdoing a few things. 

[prometheus]

if He were so unpleasant, we'd all be dead long ago.  but, He, in infinite love - promised that the flood which covered the entire earth (and yes - the ark still sits on mt. ararat as nasa has pics of an anomoly on that exact mountain) would never be flooded again.  if He couldn't control his anger - we'd be smaller than smushed ants to Him.

God forces people to kill babies in the bible, Kill pregnant woman. If I were to do such a thing would you call me 'unpleasant' or something else?

You bring up here that god killed everyone on the whole planet, except for Noah's family. And then you use this as an example of his pleasantness.

It would be if I were to enter a school and kill everyone but 2 children and then you comming and saying I am such a nice person because I let two of those children live. So then I promise to never do it again. And then again you praise me.

That's immoral. If you can't see that the god of the OT is 'evil' then you do not have the morality required in a modern world.

Christians also wrote stories in which Jesus as a child kills fellow children. Luckely they did delete those books. Why don't you delete the whole OT? All those gruesome stories? Delete them, correct them, reject them.

I don't understand the rest you talked about.

[pianistimo]

i've never heard the stories you mention on the latter.  perhaps you can illuminate what books those were.

as for the former - the bible speaks for itself.  it was not God who was impatient - but men who were evil and didn't learn from noah's warning for 100 years?  do you realize that (gen 6:5) 'every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was evil continually.'  but, despite that, noah was around 500 years when God told him to start building - and 600 when the flood came.  what were these people doing the whole time?  ridiculing noah for listening to God.

now, some might say that 500 years is an unreasonable life span.  well, not according to those who believe that death is a sort of illness - of which early man may have had more immunities to the sickness, pollution, and also according to the bible- the blessing of God.  after the flood - God purposed that noone should live longer than 120 years.  (gen 6)  interesting that all down through time until this time - noone has lived longer than that.  that's another LIMITATION.

[thalbergmad]

did you know scientists used an old mine shaft somewhere's in the midwest to go a certain  distance below ground to study thermonuclear fusions that they believe happen on the sun.  and yet, for all our knowledge of neutrinos - scientists still can't figure out why so few are emanating (according to their theories of the number of nuclear fusions that happen on the sun) from the sun.  there should be, according to scientists - a lot more neutrinos coming out. 

at this point - i suddenly bow out and wait for your response because i have neither studied neutrinos - nor even know if i am spelling the word correctly.  and - yet - i have to wonder if science will ever be able to study the sun - which is completely observable and yet hard to measure because it's so hot.

and, yes - ahinton - i'm really hot too.  of course hot (in sun and people terms) is a purely speculatively measured thing.  i mean - if someone says 'the sun is really hot.'  everyone would agree.  but, exactly how hot is it?  can we give a definate temperature - of the CORE.  i mean - some scientists go and say 'oh, it's thus and such degrees.'  well, i remember reading this in highschool and saying to myself 'this is **'  they don't know how hot the sun is.  how could they?  they'd be burned up before the temperature gauge had a chance to register.

now, women are similar - i mean if you are married, you can approximately gauge how hot your mate is by the number of big O's they can reach in 5 minutes.  but, what if they burn out like the sun because of too many fusions.  maybe you should save what is left and count the fusions less as a measure of hotness and more as a measure of anomolies and just leave it at that (like nasa).  i think women gauge hotness on a different plane  - perhaps planet.  today i saw a 'hot' guy waiter at the restaurant my husband and i went to - but he did not affect me personally because i was with the man i love.  so, all his hotness didn't really make me personally affected.  now, this could not be said for a man with a bit of sophistication like the 'take home chef' which i watched last night - making a desert pear soup.  i had to shut the door - so my husband would not be jealous.  but, even then - i took into account that this man - despite his good looks and cooking - could not even come near the good cooking that my husband has done.  although i have to admit that adding cayanne to practically everything he cooked (this is the take home chef) - made me wonder if he was overdoing a few things. 

Your point?

[thalbergmad]

as for the former - the bible speaks for itself. 

The Bible speaks for man.

Man wrote the Bible
Man translated the Bible
Man edited the Bible

Most importantly, it was man who decided want went in and what was kept out.

You have not answered my previous question about where all the water came for the flood.

Thal

[nicco]

Your point?

HAHA. good one.

[asyncopated]

did you know scientists used an old mine shaft somewhere's in the midwest to go a certain  distance below ground to study thermonuclear fusions that they believe happen on the sun.  and yet, for all our knowledge of neutrinos - scientists still can't figure out why so few are emanating (according to their theories of the number of nuclear fusions that happen on the sun) from the sun.  there should be, according to scientists - a lot more neutrinos coming out. 

at this point - i suddenly bow out and wait for your response because i have neither studied neutrinos - nor even know if i am spelling the word correctly.  and - yet - i have to wonder if science will ever be able to study the sun - which is completely observable and yet hard to measure because it's so hot.

Yes i did.  the short answer is I don't know the answer. I don't even know the possible theories of why this might me so.  My area of study is not nuclear and particle physics, it's non-equilibrium and condensed-matter physics.  At this point you need to be a specialist to know what is happening.  I could read the papers if you really wanted to know the current thinking and try to help you interpret the theories, but I'm not going to waste days doing that unless you REALLY REALLY want to know.

and - yet - i have to wonder if science will ever be able to study the sun - which is completely observable and yet hard to measure because it's so hot.

Have a look at SOHO.  There is a group where I am heavily involved with this.  They helped design and build the spacecraft. 
https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

and, yes - ahinton - i'm really hot too.  of course hot (in sun and people terms) is a purely speculatively measured thing.  i mean - if someone says 'the sun is really hot.'  everyone would agree.  but, exactly how hot is it?  can we give a definate temperature - of the CORE.  i mean - some scientists go and say 'oh, it's thus and such degrees.'  well, i remember reading this in highschool and saying to myself 'this is **'  they don't know how hot the sun is.  how could they?  they'd be burned up before the temperature gauge had a chance to register.

Good to know that you are hot.  Human being should be around 37 degrees centigrade.  If not that may be a problem.  It's good that you question! Really it is! and you are correct to say that they did not measure the temperature using any kind of thermometer.  It would burn up.

There are a few ways to do it.  I will try to described two.
1.  If you look at the light from the sun, you can get a temperature just from that.  This is the same way as how a ear thermometer works.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/question312.htm

It is extremely accurate. There are however problems, you are not only looking at light from the core, but radiaiton from the sun as a whole. After that, you need some model of the sun to infer the temperature of the core.

2.   By looking at varioius aspects, we can understand the various fussion processes that take place in the sun.  Some of these processes cannot occur unless it is hot enough. If you know which processes are occuring and how much of it is happening, you can estimate a temperature from that.

Using different techniques like the ones mentioned give us a good estimate for the temperature at the core of the sun.  We know some techniques are more accurate, some are less, some give slightly higher results and some lower.  But over all, you get a silly number like 13,600,000 Kelvins, with some error bars (I don't know the error bars), but if you look at the number of zeros, it's probably accurate to 500,000 kelvins.

As to trying to measure how hot people are, that's a whole different problem.

 

[prometheus]

i've never heard the stories you mention on the latter.  perhaps you can illuminate what books those were.

How on the world is that possible? Don't you know the bible? Just an example.

This is in Numbers 31 where God asks Moses to go on a genocidal spree against the Midianites in revenge.

What revenge? Apperently there was a plague that killed 24 thousand of their people. It was a punishment of god because the people of Moses started to take over some religious practices of the Midianites.

So god was jealous and caused a plague killing 24 thousand of Moses his people. And then god talks to Moses about attacking the Midianites to take revenge. He gives Moses detailed instructions:



17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


So kill all the male children, kill all the mother/pregnant woman and take all the female children and virgins as slaves. That's the biggest crime a human can commit in this world. And god tells him to do so; genocide. Also, for those that remain alive. Slavery is wrong. Taking a child as your wife/sex slave is also wrong.

As for the reason, the Midianites are totally innocent.  God caused the plague that killed their people because of the actions of the people of Moses. But this god is so extremely jealous he does things and blames it on innocent people, ordering to kill  all of them including all the male children.

That is so sickening and stupid. Absolutely absolutely terrible terrible. Name me one character in all of literature that does something more sickening?

And this is just one example.

as for the former - the bible speaks for itself.  it was not God who was impatient - but men who were evil and didn't learn from noah's warning for 100 years?

So those children weren't innocent after all? What about all the animals? Surely they were innocent? Or unborn fetussus? I mean, I am against aborting fetusses after a particular state and I am for punishing someone who kills a pregnant woman just before childbirth as a murderer two people.

But this god of the bible, he killed all of them. There must have been many pregnant woman on the world at the time of the flood that were about to give birth. Those babies had evil in their heart?

God destroyed all animal life. How many animals would have gone extinct? Some Animals also suffer, you know, just as much as humans can suffer.

I think it is pretty retarded for a god that is all powerful to punish a few humans and kill all children and all animals in the process. Then having some minor regrets and comming up with such a silly idea to safe the animals and the humans.

I mean, if he wanted the flood to stop why didn't he do that? Even during the flood he could have just zapped it all away, all the water that is. Or just turn back time.

And if he wanted to kill off all of his creation to start over. He would have just turned back time and then those people would have never existed and thus could never be harmed. Or he could have made them all infertile so they wouldn't be able to reproduce.

Sure, people want to get children but can't. That's not nice. But hey, it's a lot better than drowning everyone alive, though that's not the worst way to die.

Of course it is all a silly bronze age myth. But it is immoral and primitive. Calling the god of the OT a troglodyte is an understatement.

now, some might say that 500 years is an unreasonable life span.

It is not unreasonable. It is a silly fairytale story with primitive morals. It is impossible. We all know that in the bronze age people didn't get very old. They should have been happy if they reached the age of 40. My father is 49. He would have been dead if he lived in the bronze age. Not only did he suffer from Appendicitis when he was young, which would have probably killed him in the bronze age. How ironic, this organ which is clearly a left over from evolution though it does still have minor functions.

But now he has a heart disease. Caused by a virus designed by your god. He would probably have been dead by now if it wasn't for medication. Your god kills people, or rather he gives them short lives for stupid reasons. Science saves them.

Death itself is not a sickness. Unless you mean that my father was punished by god while science cancelled his punishment. I can't imagine that the god of the OT would take that kind of opposition. If he decides my father has to be punished to death by a virus that causes heart failure and doctors cure him he would send a lightning bolt for my father. And for the docters that treat him.

Ooh, and he would also kill all the male children in town, just for the fun of it.