December 29th, 2011
09:10 AM ET
My Take: The 3 biggest biblical misconceptions
Editor’s note: John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, is author of "Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World."
By John Shelby Spong, Special to CNN
The Bible is both a reservoir of spiritual insight and a cultural icon to which lip service is still paid in the Western world. Yet when the Bible is talked about in public by both believers and critics, it becomes clear that misconceptions abound.
To me, three misconceptions stand out and serve to make the Bible hard to comprehend.
First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it.
The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament.
Actually, that's not in the Bible
Can a defining tribal narrative that is passed on orally for 45 generations ever be regarded as history, at least as history is understood today?
Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture.
This means that everything we know about Moses in the Bible had to have passed orally through about 15 generations before achieving written form. Do stories of heroic figures not grow, experience magnifying tendencies and become surrounded by interpretive mythology as the years roll by?
My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?
Jesus of Nazareth, according to our best research, lived between the years 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Yet all of the gospels were written between the years 70 to 100 A.D., or 40 to 70 years after his crucifixion, and they were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write.
Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written - that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John - we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100.
For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative.
In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side.
Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all.
My Take: Yes, the Bible really condemns homosexuality
Instead, it’s an interpretive account designed to conform the story of Jesus’ death to the messianic yearnings of the Hebrew Scriptures, including Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.
The Bible interprets life from its particular perspective; it does not record in a factual way the human journey through history.
The second major misconception comes from the distorting claim that the Bible is in any literal sense “the word of God.” Only someone who has never read the Bible could make such a claim. The Bible portrays God as hating the Egyptians, stopping the sun in the sky to allow more daylight to enable Joshua to kill more Amorites and ordering King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites.
Can these acts of immorality ever be called “the word of God”? The book of Psalms promises happiness to the defeated and exiled Jews only when they can dash the heads of Babylonian children against the rocks! Is this “the word of God? What kind of God would that be?
The Bible, when read literally, calls for the execution of children who are willfully disobedient to their parents, for those who worship false gods, for those who commit adultery, for homosexual persons and for any man who has sex with his mother-in-law, just to name a few.
The Bible exhorts slaves to be obedient to their masters and wives to be obedient to their husbands. Over the centuries, texts like these, taken from the Bible and interpreted literally, have been used as powerful and evil weapons to support killing prejudices and to justify the cruelest kind of inhumanity.
The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging. Instead, the Bible presents us with an evolutionary story, and in those evolving patterns, the permanent value of the Bible is ultimately revealed.
It was a long road for human beings and human values to travel between the tribal deity found in the book of Exodus, who orders the death of the firstborn male in every Egyptian household on the night of the Passover, until we reach an understanding of God who commands us to love our enemies.
The transition moments on this journey can be studied easily. It was the prophet named Hosea, writing in the eighth century B.C., who changed God’s name to love. It was the prophet named Amos who changed God’s name to justice. It was the prophet we call Jonah who taught us that the love of God is not bounded by the limits of our own ability to love.
It was the prophet Micah who understood that beautiful religious rituals and even lavish sacrifices were not the things that worship requires, but rather “to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” It was the prophet we call Malachi, writing in the fifth century B.C., who finally saw God as a universal experience, transcending all national and tribal boundaries.
One has only to look at Christian history to see why these misconceptions are dangerous. They have fed religious persecution and religious wars. They have fueled racism, anti-female biases, anti-Semitism and homophobia.They have fought against science and the explosion of knowledge.
The ultimate meaning of the Bible escapes human limits and calls us to a recognition that every life is holy, every life is loved, and every life is called to be all that that life is capable of being. The Bible is, thus, not about religion at all but about becoming deeply and fully human. It issues the invitation to live fully, to love wastefully and to have the courage to be our most complete selves.
That is why I treasure this book and why I struggle to reclaim its essential message for our increasingly non-religious world.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Shelby Spong.
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
The author is abysmally short on faith – faith in God the Father, who can indeed be terrible, God the Son, who meant what He said, and did what He did, and God the Holy Spirit, who has compelled the Church to record the Truth as It is and is meant to be. I don't think the author believes in original sin at all. What a poor excuse for a bishop, whatever the ecclesial community,
Yep, that Christian god of yours, he'd be quite the ass-hole if he actually existed. The guy would be in his own realm of evil and torture.
"compelled the church to record the truth" eh?....no mention of why these "recordings" came in some cases dozens, hundreds and thousands of years after the supposed event? common sense tells you they made a lot of it up to fill in the blanks left out of the oral retellings....thats what the author is pointing out and THAT is the truth that scares the bejeezus out of the "church". people have awakened and wont be led with blinders anymore
> The author is abysmally short on faith
Which is good. He's intellectually confronting his faith, which is the honest and intelligent thing to do. People can have faith in lots of things and they can be wrong about it. Faith isn't a pathway to truth. It's a pathway to accepting what you want to accept because it's too hard to think that what you believe might be wrong.
> – faith in God the Father, who can indeed be terrible, God the Son, who meant what He said, and did what He did, and God the Holy Spirit, who has compelled the Church to record the Truth as It is and is meant to be.
So you're a polytheist. Good to know.
> I don't think the author believes in original sin at all.
Well, to be fair, original sin is moronic. I mean, God creates Adam and Eve with character flaws that God knows will cause them to disobey him. They then disobey him and God blames them. It's silly and poorly thought out.
It's no different then me making a paper airplane without wings and when I try and fly it and it doesn't work I say "Damn you paper airplane, I'm going to punish you. And I'm going to punish all paper airplanes that follow."
It's that degree of stupidity. I honestly don't understand why people don't see it for what it is.
What a poor excuse for a bishop, whatever the ecclesial community,
Ah yes – original sin – the catchall element that enables priests to claim that only they and their Gods have the power to forgive you for something you never did in the first place. Charming concept. Goes well with the old way of proving a witch – if she floated she was guilty and if she drowned she was innocent after all. They should bring back some of those old customs at State Fairs maybe.
The only thing that "compelled the Church" was control of "the people" and financial gain.
*** compelled the Church to record the Truth as It is and is meant to be.
The church has for centuries been buying, stealing, collecting, or destroying
anything that might paint Jesus Christ in a different light than they want the public to believe.
Jesus was not white, blue eyed blond from the movies.
Jesus was also not poor, and not uneducated.
Jesus never passed a collection plate.
Jesus was preaching that god is in your heart.
The catholic church wants your azz in church and feeding the plate with money.
You dont need a church to have god or jesus in your life,
its a scam.
This follower of the wife-slayer, Henry VIII, forgot to mention the Infamous Angelic Cons:
Joe Smith had his Moroni.
Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;
Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).
Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day dem-on of the de-mented.
The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.
Added details available for the asking.
@John Shelby Spong
Mr. Spong, you are no Christian at all, but you have turned apostate from the Christian faith. You spread lies, which have nothing to do with the true doctrine of the Early Church, Augustine, Athanasius, John of Damascus, Sophronius, Hilarius, Cyprian, Ambrosius, the Ecu-menical Councils, Luther, Bonhoeffer, etc., etc.. You are totally out of line.
Pleas be aware of Judgement Day, when you will have to give account of every futile word, you have spoken.
The whole above article of Mr. Spong is a demonic lie and I condemn it.
Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, were founders of Christ-based religions who also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty, wingy, talking, flying, fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, were founders of Christ-based religions who also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty, wingy, talking, flying, fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits an-alogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
Watch out! If Rainer condemns it, there is no hope to be had...
It's good to know that we have a blogger who claims to know far more about the Bible than a person who demonstrated such knowledge of it that he was elevated to the position of bishop. Yep.
> Mr. Spong, you are no Christian at all,
Because Rainer, you're the ultimate judge of who and who is not a Christian. How silly of me.
> but you have turned apostate from the Christian faith.
So, because he doesn't agree with you, he's wrong? Intelligent people say "He's got a different viewpoint, I should check it out." Morons say "you're evil that's why you're saying those things".
> You spread lies, which have nothing to do with the true doctrine of the Early Church, Augustine, Athanasius, John of Damascus, Sophronius, Hilarius, Cyprian, Ambrosius, the Ecu-menical Councils, Luther, Bonhoeffer, etc., etc
This is the part where you list a whole bunch of names to make it sound like you know what you're talking about, but the sad part is that first of all, you're not and second of all, it doesn't matter at all to the argument.
> You are totally out of line.
He's totally representing the facts of the bible. You should read a History of God. In there most if not all of the claims made by the author are also repeated, with numerous citings to peer reviewed papers. Perhaps you should put down your bible and try reading a different book.
> Pleas be aware of Judgement Day, when you will have to give account of every futile word, you have spoken.
If there is such a thing. And guess what, there probably isn't. Just like there probably isn't Ragnarok, or gehenna.
> The whole above article of Mr. Spong is a demonic lie and I condemn it.
There we go. The "you're evil and you're lying" response.
Spoken like a true "end timer". I think that the utopia you so long for would not be worth it if you were to actually witness the "judgements" god doles out in Revelation. It is all very neat, clean, and sterile to imagine this fantasy of the "sinners" getting their come-uppance while sitting in a nice comfortable chair with your latte in one hand and bible in the other listening to your pastor in a multi-million dollar building. It would be quite another to live it, see it, experience it. You want to experience horror as outlined in Revelation? Why don't you go to a war torn country and live in that for a while. I can guarantee you wouldn't be so anxious for "the judgement" after that. Sidenote: Martin Luther (you know him, the godfather of protestant churches..) thought that the book of Revelation was useless and relegated it to the appendix of the bible he translated into German. What does that tell you?
You seem threatened by reality, not uncommon for people who follow blindly.
And you have just passed judgement and that is a sin.
But your sin is ok, huh ?
The Bible – not the Word of God? I am amazed at someone so educated making such a silly statment. Throughout history, many have mocked and ridiculed the validity of the Bible. They have passed on but it remains. The Bible, God's Word, will endure forever. But don't take my word for it Mr Spong, you can ask Jesus Christ personally when he returns...very, very, soon. I'm sure He can set the record straight as well as straighten out your mis-conceptions.
haha the "he will return very soon" theme never gets old.....when 'HE?' never returns people can just keep saying its right around the corner. BRILLIANT! i tell ya these religious folks have their game setup nicely eh?
Rev Roger Jones
People only mock those who take the Bible literally. Treat it for what it is, like the article says, and people will generally stop mocking it.
Returning very, very soon? That's what Jesus is supposed to have said; lots of folks wondering about that "soon" part a few centuries later...
“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”
—1 John 2:18
The last hour was 2,000 year ago.
" ... this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
The biblical definition of a generation can be found in Psalm 90.
"The years of our lives are 70; and if by reason of strength they be 80 years, yet most of them are labor and sorrow; for life is soon cut off and we fly away."
26 Psalms 90:10
This is confirmed in the Gospel of Matthew.
"Therefore all the generations from Abraham down to David are 14 generations; and from David down to the Babylonian captivity are 14 generations; and from the Babylonian captivity down to messiah, are 14 generations."
– Matthew 1:17
Matthew is using the Psalm 90 definitions of Generation in order to tell a specific chronological story.
Jesus was supposed to have returned 2,000 years ago according to His own disciples.
Any day now, right?
Read the article again. He is not mocking the bible, just it's claim to be fully inerrant and "myth free". CS Lewis made a similar argument in "Mere Christianity".
The bible is like a bad car fix manuel.
Engine of a ford.
Drive train of a chevy.
Brakes from a pontiac.
Tail lights from a cadillac.....
You get the picture.
Its a wreck.
Jesus just left Chicago,
bound for New Orleans.
And all points in betweeen.
I'm more curious about what they left out of the Bible than what's in it.
you dont have to be curious about what was left out....its are called 'biblical apocrypha' and you can read it online whenever you like. the internet means the shroud of mystery that religous people try to shroud themselves and their teachings in have been removed.
The left out parts were anything that conflicted with the orthodoxy...
You should read the gospels of Mary and judas.
Paints a different picture about Jesus, and the roles people played.
Finally a biblical scholar who is not trapped to man-made dogmatic nonsense. If one were to follow the Bible literally, it would be and endless juxtaposition of loving enemies–smiting enemies and showing tolerance–punishing the different. Strict adherence to outdated man-written text brings about jihads, the crusades, and the taliban. Those whose comment criticize the author are only acting out of frustration and anger that their mindless following of the dogmas are perhaps misplaced.
Thank you, Mr. Spong for reminding everyone that God is about love, patience, kindness, and humility rather than revenge, brimstone, and violence.
Yeah, 'loving', except for those nasty bloody goat burnings that god needs you to do regularly to make his nostrils happy, and those mass murders he does on a whim. And he'll torture you forever just for minor transgressions. Uh huh....'loving'.
I always get a kick out of people taking sides, as if one side was the "obvious" truth and the other "obviously" false. The Bible, like the scriptures of all the major religions, are "based on a true story", taking license with filling in details for the audience. But to interpret them literally on the one hand, or to write them all off as myth, are both intellectually lazy, to coin C.S. Lewis' phrase.
Why is it intellectually lazy to believe the Bible is pure mythology. Do you believe the Norse mythologies are also true? What about unicorns or dragons? Provide proof or admit you simply believe and that no amount of proof would ever shake your conviction because it is not based on logic at all. Like a madman in fact!
Yep, whatever one does, DO NOT mess with our beliefs – even to expampnfpd them....
Is that a Klingon verb?
Steve Jobs was smarter than God: he created the iPhone from a pice of sheep brain, then invented the clouds, and now even move there, still he keep caming every year to give updates in his creations. The Bible has been abandoned now fror centuries and centuries, now that we have Internet, and even Facebook! How is that God can not figure out how to use Face Book? Well , because its book is really a Fake Book rather than Face Book! Oherwise we could write in his wall (or cloud) and forget about prayers!
I love lamp.
There were horses, and a man on fire and I killed a guy with a trident.
Apply whatever you have found TO YOURSELF.
Uh right, read the bible, and apply it so you do those regular bloody animal sacrifices that Christian god demands of you, or else he'll burn you in he-ll forever. The bible says so, in lurid gory detail.
No thanks. You can keep your sick bible and its nasty, horrid doctrine. Or just take it to the nearest paper recycling location.
This is one of the best articles i've ever seen on the Bible. the meanings of the Bible are not on the surface, but hidden in the meanings of the stories. taking the Bible as history is like saying 'Gone With the Wind' must be a true story because Atlanta exists and the Civil War actually happened. God didn't sit anyone on His/Her lap and say 'take a bible.' it is inspired, not dictated. and it was put together by a committee with their own political and social agenda so there again you have things left in or out because of men's desire to control the masses. religion in and of itself is not bad, it's what people do with it that is evil. all religion should do is make each of us a better person. if you're using it to justify your own prejudice or hate, you're doin' it wrong!
Bravo Lizzie. EXACTLY.
Actually, Liz, you just spoke to one aspect of why religion is intrinsically bad. It is so easily used to manipulate stupid, gullible folk. However, as your post also suggests, whether you intended it or not, some in power such as religious management whose salaries depend on it, consider that to be a positive thing.
Liz, to add to your comments – every time the Bible was translated (Greek, Imperial Latin, Vulgate Latin, various vernaculars) the translators had an agenda that usually represented their religious and political beliefs. Look at the various translations available in English, alone. Some were authorized by the Roman Catholic Church, others by various Protestant denominations, others by joint committees. Some are more scholarly than others. The best ones went back to the oldest codices available to ensure the truest original sources. Those will also note where the original phrase could have different meanings depending on context. Writing in modern English we have the advantage of punctuation marks to denote the changes in phrase, beginning and ending of sentences, quotations, etc. The original Hebrew and Greek texts, and their Latin Translations, did not use punctuation marks as we know them. The Greek and original Latin texts do not even have word breaks! Therefore all further translation not only requires knowledge of the original language, but also in its usage at the time the texts were written or transcribed. That is why you can have a half-dozen different translations open to the same passage at the same time and read different word structures in each.
Hugs to Liz, well put.
We people are attached with the material world and any religions or scriptures are beyond our intellectual. You need a Guru who is God Realized to understand the meaning of bible or any other scriptures. Our intellectural do not reach the leval of understaing of any scriptures by our effords. You need to search for a god realized saint to understand bible or any other scripture. There are saints living in the world always... without them the world would not exist. but our material mind would not recognize them until you are really seeking for the GOD! you have to understand why Jesus had 11 devotees only despite the fact that he introduced the christanity. Mohammad had only 50 devotees... so we people are mistreating all the religiions and scriptures by using our material brain. We need to purify our hearts and then try to read the bibie with the guidence of a god realized saint. then you will understant what the bible meant to say etc.
Aside from your inability to use "intellectual" correctly, nor even spell it consistently, the remaining other nonsense of your post actually weighs in favor of the bible not being the word of a god. Certainly not of one that actually intended to communicate, anyway.
Respectfully, your conclusions are your opinion with regards to the historical accuracy of the scriptures. I don't believe the stories were passed from generation to generation before they were written. I believe that each book was written through direct communication between God and the writer. It boils down to what each of us chooses to believe, which are elements of our individual relationships with God.
Well, since historians, and literary critics, and archeologists have proven that you are totally wrong, you can continue your delusion, or decide to look into the truth. Do you even know the languages/dialects it was "written" in, and when and how the translations were done ? If your Jeebus intended it for us, why didn't he "dictate" it in English ?
@ detada OK, I "choose" to believe what is demonstrably or at least arguably true. How about you?
Why then, does God say one thing to one author, and then another thing to another author at a different time? Did God change his mind? And please address my biggest issue with it – and that is the spiteful, hateful, violent, favorite-playing Old Testament God. I for one cannot believe that He who created the Universe and all peoples would favor one set of goat-herders over all of the other civilizations: Asians, Mayans, North Americans, Australian Aboriginals, Sub-Saharan tribes, Germanic and Norse tribes, etc, etc, etc. All real religions eventually point to the same capital -T TRUTH. DOn't get caught up in politically-motivated minutae.
Ignoring facts only makes you seem like a blind follower because it is what you need....not because it is real or true. The Bible is absolutely not historical fact. It has been proven to have been written many years after events and anyone who has studied the book with an open mind is fully aware of this. The it was interpretted by many more, if you really think it is accurate I guess that is your problem.
And the brown acid helped.
Clearly, the author has, in my opinion, missed the whole point of the Bible – and that is to show Christ as the Son of God, the Savior of Mankind, and, with his Father, the ultimate Judge of all at the end of time. There is, in my opinion, no other way to life in Heaven with the Father and the Son for all of eternity, except through personal belief in and personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as a personal savior and as Lord of all in each individual's life. You are welcome to your own opinion. I make no comments about others' beliefs, but I personally believe Jesus to be the only way to eternal life in Heaven. So, in my opinion, the author and his article are totally wrong.
So the Old Testament is simply a meaningless preamble because that doesnt mention Jesus by name and I don't recall Jeews ever treating the New Testament as having much meaning or them believing Jesus was a son of a deity? The Jews after all did write the Old Testament.
No Joyce. He has a more enlightened view of the "meanings" of all those tired old words you throw around. They mean something to you, and many other things to many others. They can "mean" many things. The 3rd grade meaning is for children.
So you believe that Jesus sends people to hell to be tortured forever for not believing in him and you approve?
To clarify...Amen to JoyceRock! Christ's coming was foretold in the very beginning in the book of Genesis, and Jesus was even believed to have been seen in the fire pit in the book of Daniel. So yes, the Old Testament is definitely meaningful.
Uh, Joyce? Last time I checked the English language, calling a presentation "totally wrong" is indeed making a comment about the author's belief. No credit given for tolerance when it doesn't exist; sorry...
*** Clearly, the author has, in my opinion understood the bible better than you have.
The Roman senate declared Julius Ceasar to be a god.
Julius Ceasar had a son with Cleopatra and his son Cesearian
was declared the son of god.
So what "god" are we talking about ?
The one in your fictional bible,
or the one in history ?
There are a million different ways that the bible can be interpreted. It seems to me that most religions take what they want and leave the rest out. Whatever you choose to believe is fine with me, but please stop being so closed minded. If you want to change my mind there needs to be some evidence. You can't just leave out everything you can't explain and call it an educated argument.
No, there aren't a million ways – there can only be one. Otherwise the authority of He or She who is arbiter of this 'correct' perspective is undermined. after all religion is more about Politics than Spirituality.
There can only be one? So the Great Deity is a kind of Highlander?...
So... if he doesn't beleive the Bible is historically true, or the word of God or an unchanging truth what DOES he think it is? I agree 100% that it is all nonsense as I am an atheist but I do struggle to understand how someone whose job is to help people remain Christians can have the same views as I do!
I can't speak for him, of course, but it seems that he may accept the Bible's teachings the way many accept the teachings of Aesop's Fables or other such literature. It's not a literal or historical work, but rather a work of morality told through stories.
Jacob M – indeed but then he may as well use Aesop or any fairly tale to illustrate morality. I am trying to understand how if he doesnt believe the Bible he can be a believer in God etc – what evidence is he using?
He realizes if he doesn't reshape the brand and marketing strategy, he will eventually loose all his customers.
I know it sounds goofy, but listen,
Peace, harmony, earth, understanding, love, acceptence.....
Great stuff, huh ?
Now if it could only happen.
Religion does not help.
Keep your god in your heart.
Keep your god out of other peoples lives.
We have laws, and morals.
We dont need preachers.
Spong is in the wrong business. His education couldn't have been so off base as to have given him such a warped idea of Biblical concepts, history, and purpose. He's clearly nothing but a renegade.
Allow me to translate.
"He holds a differnet viewpoint then I do. Because I'm absolutely right with little to no supporting evidence for my position, he's clearly wrong and a renegade."
Do you people even hear yourselves?
I love it when people so closed minded to thinking belittle someone who has actually spent years studying something with an open, intelligent and thoughtful purpose.
Yeah, clearly a renegade; rather like that Jesus fellow...
Jesus was a renegade.
Jesus tried to change minds,
you dont get it.
This guy makes a comparison that god hated the egyptians so the bible cant be the word of god! wow... he needs to study more and discover the true attribute of god. its not that god hated egypt, first and foremost you must understand what moses wrote that god is a consuming fire that hates sin (not egypt.) then this guy must realize that god loved and chose to make a nation out of israel and rescued them from the wicked nation of egypt. Then this guy must realize that egypt opressed gods firstborn which is israel so god demanded all the firstborn of egypt to be taken if king pharroh did not let his people go.. theres so much more i can write but ile spare this guys embarrassment.
> This guy makes a comparison that god hated the egyptians so the bible cant be the word of god! wow... he needs to study more and discover the true attribute of god.
Actually, God did hate the egyptians. Remember, the pharoah bent to God's will and God decided to inflict more plauges upon them. What was that? It's called vengence.
> its not that god hated egypt,
Of course he didn't. He only inflicted egyptians, whehter they were responsible or not, with plagues to make their lives horrible. And then he killed more after just for funzies.
> first and foremost you must understand what moses wrote that god is a consuming fire that hates sin (not egypt.)
God created sin, so how can God hate sin?
> then this guy must realize that god loved and chose to make a nation out of israel and rescued them from the wicked nation of egypt.
The nation that he caused to come into existence.
> Then this guy must realize that egypt opressed gods firstborn which is israel so god demanded all the firstborn of egypt to be taken if king pharroh did not let his people go.. theres so much more i can write but ile spare this guys embarrassment.
The only thing embarassing is your kindergarden approach to your faith.
How were the Egyptians any more sinful than the Israelites? The Israelites ended up owning slaves and didn't want to free them either, right?
this sentence "first and foremost you must understand what moses wrote" disqualifies anything you have to say after it. Moses wrote nothing. There was no written story about Moses until 300 years after he died.
"moses wrote that god is a consuming fire that hates sin"
Moses didn't write anything, someone else made up a story for him and wrote MANY years later....I am sure it is historically accurate I mean, it couldn't be wrong.
Words cannot describe wrong you are, in everything that you've said. I would ask just one thing: Who's all of the biblical scholars that agree with you? Because I personally know dozens that would emphatically disagree with everything you say. It's really shocking that you would tear down Christianity so much, and twist the very meaning of it: That God loved the world enough to send His son Jesus Christ to die for us, that we might have everlasting life, if we so choose.
Yes, because if someone references anyhting negatively, they're distorting it.
The reality is that you're so emotionally tied to your own faith you cannot accept that it's faulty. For example, the moon is not a source of light. That's in the bible and I'm not referencing it incorrectly.
As for twisting the meaning, everyone twists the meaning. Some to make it seem better then it is and some to make it sound worse then it is.
The reality is that the bible has flaws and as such, cannot be accepted on faith rationally.
He talking about actual biblical scholars. You know, the people who get the jobs teaching at respected universities. Which 'scholars' are you referring to?
Sue, remember, a lot of these MegaChurch pastors have everyone convinced that they are Biblical Scholars because they talk about the KJV stories from the Old Testament about God's smiting the enemies of Isreal. Most of them have never opened up any other version of the Bible and seriously studied the textual differences.
Thousands of Biblical scholars agree with him. Many loose faith after extensive study because they realize it is total bunk.
Actually, I just spoke to God, and She said the main article was right on. She also said that I could quote Her, and reminded me to include the phrase "this is the true word of God"...