Re: The Holy Bible

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 22:06:01 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]> wrote:

(much snippage throughout)

> Professor of Egyptology J. A. Wilson stated, 
> “Egyptian records were always positive, emphasizing the successes of

No surprise.

> Thus we shouldn't be the least bit surprised to not find any mention
> of the Egyptians humiliating experience with the Israelites and their
> exodus etc, in the ancient Egyptian writings remaining today. (Nor,
> the highly involved Moses)

The egyptians left a huge body of writing behind, not all on
obelisks.  Plus, there's no archaelogical evidence for 2
million hebrews in egypt.

Biggest argument against exodus: After the 1967 war, Israeli
archaeologists had 7 years to comb the Sinai for traces of
millions of hebrews wandering in the desert.  They had every
motivation to find something, even ashes from fire pits, or
shards of pottery.  They found nothing.

You can't have 2 million lost Jews wandering the little sinai
peninsula for 40 years without leaving a trace.

The exodus never happened.

> >> >God appeared to Abraham (Gen 18)
> >> >Jacob saw God (Gen 32)
> >> >Moses spoke with God face to face, as to a 
> >> >	friend (Ex 33:11)
> >> >Moses, Aaron & 70 elders saw God (Ex 24)
> >> >God shows Moses his butt (Ex 33:23)
> >> >   As illustrated by Michelangelo on the ceiling 
> >> >   of the Sistine Chapel:
> >> ><https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/michelangelo-warrior-pope-and-gods-bottom/>
> >> >
> >>  
> >> See above.

God spoke to Moses face to face, or the scripture lies. Using
angel intermediaries is not face to face.


> >> >Who did Mary and Mary Magdalene see at Jesus's tomb?
> >> 
> >> Show me the Scriptures you are referring to.
> >
> >Matthew: They saw an angel.
> >Mark: a man.
> >Luke: two men.
> >John: two angels.
> 
> When there is multiple Bible statements on a subject, it is the
> differing writing style of the writer. If Matthew said 1 angel, and
> John says 2, then just put them together. Then there was certainly 1
> angel according to John plus a 2nd one. Thus there were 2 angels seen.

No.  It's a matter of simple statements, not writing style.

1 or 2 angels is not 1 or 2 men.  Forgivable confusion, but
still a contradiction.

> 
> Luke 24:4:
> 
> -- King James
> Luke 24:4  And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed
> thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
> 
> Those "two men" were angels. How do we know? They had glowing cloths.
> Also the women recodnized them as not being ordinary male Jews,
> because of verse 5:
> 
> "-- King James
> Luke 24:5  And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the
> earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?"
> 
> They wouldn't act that way if they were ordinary men. 
> 
> The Bible tells us to REASON on the Scriptures. (Acts 17:2) If a
> person doesn't reason on them, they can end up in the dark. 

If you reason on the scriptures, they become incredible.  Or,

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for
atheism ever conceived."  - Isaac Asimov 

> Here is the account in Luke: Luke 24:22-24 KJV:
> 
> 22.  Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished,
> which were early at the sepulchre;
>  23.  And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they
> had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
>  24.  And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre,
> and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
> 
> So in Luke it wasn't 2 men but "angels", plural, which means at least
> more than one. 

This is Peter telling Jesus in disguise, what he had heard.

Luke 24 1-4:
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the
women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when
they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4
While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in
clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

If you want to call this another contradiction within the
same chapter, fine with me.


> Where ever was your source, don't fall for it. They tried to trick you
> thinking you are some kind of moron that can't reason on the
> Scriptures

Lol.  My source was the bible.  Ok, I won't fall for it.


> Thus in summary we have:
> 
> Matthew=  An angel (he talked to just one angel, when there were two
> present)  (
> Mark= Two angels (Luke said their cloths were glowing. Mark didn't
> mention that and only recounts '1 glowing man' (angel) (Mark 15:46)

Mark says there was 1 man in white clothes.  Why are you
correcting this to match Luke's story?

Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man
dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they
were alarmed.

It's not surprising that Mark 16 would be contradictory.
There are various renditions of that chapter, and the last 12
verses of Mark were added after the fact.

> Luke= angels (Lu 24:23)
> John= Two angels (John 20:12)
> 
> 
> >
> >> >How did Judas die?
> >> 
> >> Please show me the Scriptures you are referring to.
> >> 
> >> I did recall a couple of Scriptures was needed to get to the truth. 
> >> Judas hanged himself over a cliff.  Then the rope broke and he fell
> >> spilling his guts out. But show me what you think.
> >
> >Matthew 27:5 Judas hanged himself.
> >Acts 1:18  Judas fell and his guts burst out.
> >
> >Two separate narratives.
> 
> Do you believe Judas just ran up to a cliff and jumped off?

No, I don't believe any of it.  But why the discrepancy?

> When we reason on it, its what I said above. Matthew highligted the
> hanging, but Luke (the writer of Acts and a doctor), focused more on
> the physiology of the man.
> 
> You see, the gospels were not just copied. They each wrote what an
> account meant to them. Thus there was no collusion going on here. 

That doesn't explain why the accounts differed in facts.

Face it, James, it's a contradiction.


> >> >Also from a previous post by Mitchell Holman:
> >> >194 Contradictions in the New Testament
> >> ><https://www.slideshare.net/salehusman585/194-contradiction-sin-the-new-testament-of-the-bible>
> >> 
> >> If you want to give them to me one at a time, I will comment on them.
> >> I do recall a couple of Scriptures that Bible scholars say was copiest
> >> errors in the OT. It had to do with quantaties. (like 1000 chariots,
> >> or 10,000 chariots)
> >
> >You can see them for yourself.  How bout the first one,:
> >"1.  Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon.
> >Mt1:6.
> >     Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Nathan.
> >Lk3:31"
> 
> Both Scriptures are correct. You might say, "How can they both be
> correct when they are clearly a contradiction?"
> 
> Actually they are not a contradiction and here is why.
> 
> Matthew traces the geniology from Soloman to Joseph, Jesus step
> father. This gave Jesus the LEGAL right to things.
> 
> Doctor Luke traces the geniology from Solomon to Mary's apparent
> father, Heli. This gave Jesus the NATURAL right to things.

Luke's geneology doesn't say anything about Mary's family. It
may be Mary's lineage, as the geneologies are completely
different, and I've heard also that one is Mary's lineage.
But Luke certainly doesn't say that, it says this is Joseph's
lineage.

Dubious at best.


> >You are thinking God made physics.  I think Nature did. 
> 
> Yet 'nature', like evolution, has no brain! Yet it conjured up all the
> forces to be used in a certain mathematical way to produce the
> complicated laws of physics?? People put a lot of stock in random
> chance. 

So?

Is it a surprise that a universe would have natural laws that
function, well, universally?  That's not evidence for God,
only evidence for (as far as we know) consistent natural
laws.

This is the fallacy of argument from ignorance; you don't
understand how natural laws can exist without God, therefore
they can't.

> And if that is true, you should be able to go into the woods and find
> a log cabin completely furnished with furniture, all the plumbing, and
> even electricity created by mindless nature. 

Now you're being silly.


> >> That means there was a lot of water on the earth, and water canapy
> >> above the earth. (high in the atmosphere) It was like Venus looks
> >> today, except their clouds surrounding it are made up of sulfuric
> >> acid, etc, instead of the earth's water vapor.
> >> (I surely won't be sunbathing on Venus)
> >
> >Canopy of water over earth is impossible.  We're talking
> >29,000 feet of water being stored in the atmosphere.  The
> >pressure would be greater than at the bottom of the ocean.
> >All that water (or vapor) would block the sunlight from
> >earth.  The water would displace all the O2.
> 
> You are guessing about the possible outcomes. Let's try this: 

I'm not guessing.  This is a simple application of stuff I
studied in high school and college.  The more mass there is
above you, the greater the pressure on you.  How can you have
29,000 feet of water over you and not have thousands of psi
of pressure pushing on you?  Unless you want to invoke the
firmament supporting it.

There was no canopy of water storing floodwaters for noah's
flood.

> Water weighs about 8 lbs per gallon. How much would the water weigh in
> a hurricane. How can something so heavy still hang in the atmosphere?
> If I take a gallon milk jug, and fill it with water, and throw it high
> in the air, guess what happens?

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

> >(round earth hanging etc)
> >> >> So in summary we have:
> >> >> 
> >> >> A spherical earth hanging in space by nothing. 

Round, not spherical.  Round can be flat.

Again, i'd be impressed with that anyway, were it not for
many other passages, even in the NT, that clearly reflected a
flat earth cosmology.

> >> >Again, by the time most of the OT was written down, it was
> >> >already widely known that the earth was round.  Certainly the
> >> >Greeks knew it when they translated the Septuagint.
> >> 
> >> How do you know?
> >
> >Because they were educated greeks from Alexandria, a center
> >of learning.  They knew that Aristotle proved the earth was
> >round in 400 BCE, and that Eristosthenes measured &
> >calculated the size of the earth in 240 BCE.
> 
> Good for him.
> 
> But the Bible outdates them. Isaiah ("the circle of the earth") was
> written in the 8th century BCE.

Depends on which part of Isaiah.  It's believed to have 3
different authors, written mostly in the 8th and 6th century
BCE.  The Septuagint wasn't translated until the 3rd century
bce.

> The book of Job, around the 15th century BCE. ("hangs the earth upon
> nothing"). How would sheepherders of all people, know such things?

No, Job is about a thousand years later than that.

(...)
> >> >Thank you for your replies, James, I appreciate your time,
> >> >effort and explanations.
> >> 
> >> Thank you for your beliefs.
> 
> Anytime.

As always.