The Bible is not the word of God

[DrProctopus]

A bunch of people who believed that God was talking to them wrote down what they believed God was saying.

The more relevant or successful scriptures were kept and eventually composed into the OT.

Something similar happend after Jesus did his thing, and the NT was produced.


Nowhere in this process do I see any reason to believe that every single word in the Bible is the word of God. Why should I believe someone when they claim to speak for God?

So, the point of debate is this:

Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?

[DrProctopus]

You have eyes but cannot see.
The Almighty must have blinded your eyes so you cannot see.
Perhaps if you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains.

Perhaps if you would explain how your point is relavent to the question of the Bible being 100% the word of God, then others would actually understand what you are trying to say.

It is not faith that I need, it is clear communication.

[1John2_26]

Denial only goes so far.

DrProtopus could be a computer program setup by infidels.org to regurgitate their incessant sound bite skepticism.

How do I know I had great grand parents as I have never seen them nor, since I am a product of supposed immigrants (that could be a lie too) never will?

The deny parade gets old after awhile. Even Satan knows that.

From J.P Holding:

The Bogus Quote Parade

A Survey of Displaced Soundbites
James Patrick Holding

One of the diseases of modern culture is the idea that complex issues can be settled and debated on the merits of "sound bites". A symptom of this mentality is the repeated use in Skeptical quarters (though yes, others do this too) of displaced "scary quotes" -- as if, for example, a single, offhand quote by a medieval pope were sufficient to overturn the work of hundreds of credentialed historians; even if it were real. Which is another problem: Some of these quotes just aren't genuine. Some are taken out of context.

peruse: http://www.tektonics.org/print.php4

Yeah, yeah "just another apologist." I've heard that before too. From just another anti-Christian.

This is an interesting piece showing that the arguing between believer and the godless isn;t going away anytime soon

Calculated Quackery

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One Mad Man and One Nice One Responds
James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Funny it is, how so many articles on this site have gone unaddressed for years, but when I post something like "Calculated Contempt" the nastygrams come out of the woodwork. I should wonder that the next project won't be my "You may be a fundy atheist if..." list. Oops, that's right, someone did send me a "rebuttal" to that....gee.

It's funny, too, because two reactions I got from Skeptics on that piece represent a study in contrasts. The first came from my companion in Scholarly Diplomacy, Kyle Gerkin, who had this to say:

As usual, I find very little to disagree with. I do think that a sort of default skepticism about supernatural events is reasonable--which would, of course, extend to such events in the Bible. However, if someone wants to actually commentate specifically on the Bible, they had better think about whether they are qualified to do so. I generally try to refrain from expressing an opinion where the Bible is unclear, unless I am citing a resource. The bottom line is that the Bible is an ancient and complex document which is impossible to fully understand simply by sitting down and reading it. One could memorize every word of scripture, but it still won't be properly understood until it is placed in the correct socio-historical context. I suggest that any non-scholar who wishes to criticize/commentate on the Bible ought to either announce their amateur status up front (ala Isaac Asimov) or rely heavily upon citations.
I think everyone can see why I like Kyle so much. Kyle lacks of presumptuous egotism that seems to be a par for Skeptics of a certain crowd, the very sort whom "Calculated Contempt" was directed. He is not afraid to say "I don't know" and does not presume to know what he doesn't, or pretend to know what he is talking about when he doesn't.

In contrast --

We also received a rather peppery set of comments, in more detail, from a certain person who we will call Bud. Hereafter we'll have my former words in bold, Bud's reply in italics, and my counter in normal type.

Well, ask yourself this question after considering what various fields of knowledge a complete and thorough (not to say sufficient for intelligent discourse, though few even reach that pinnacle, especially in the critical realm) study of the Bible requires:

First, sorry, one does not need a complete and thorough knowledge of the bible in order to critique it. Do you have this sort of expertise in semitic languages? No. Do not waste my time telling me you do unless you supply the name of the institution that granted you your masters degree int he biblically related field. So you cannot condemn the Canaanite literature outside the bible which testifies to their practices and beliefs. You are not an expert, so you can't criticize it, that's YOUR logic.

Um. First, sorry, Bud -- well, true, one CAN critique the Bible even if one is as dumb as a stump; I mean, obviously, critique it with authority, as Kyle clearly understood. Note as well that Bud cherry-picked an area I obviously claim no expertise in -- Semitic languages -- and then concluded that this was some grounds not to be able to condemn Canaanite lit. How this relates to any ability to "condemn" such lit; where I have done this specifically; how it turns on a point of linguistics (after all, "child sacrifice" seems clear in translation, unless Bud thinks there's some reason it may actually mean [against Semitic scholars I would consult as needed], "ox swinging"). Bud's tactic may actually have been here to cherry-pick linguistics, which is not germane to the example and most critiques on the subject, and try to make a fuss about it. There, the issue would be more along the lines of the social sciences, which we here have (along with Glenn Miller) acquired knowledge of. Next up, Bud plays the vagueness card:

Second, sorry, but what YOU claim is necessary to have a "complete and thorough" knowledge of the bible, isn't what others say, and since you are no better than them, well, you know what opinions are like.

A nice cover for the point that people like Bud and those in view here, themselves certainly have far from such a knowledge; that he has no "others" he quotes who say anything of the sort, much less does he explain why their word is good. Contrast this to Kyle's comments above.

Third, it only takes one genuine error to disprove the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. That being the case, how much evidence would be required to PROVE this doctrine?

Er, a moment's interruption, please. Bud has pressed the usual panic button here, but there is a late-breaking news flash: While I do accept inerrancy, it simply isn't a sacred cow for me, and Bud's depression of the panic button moves me very little. Moreover as I told Ebon Musings once:

I would like to remind the reader that whatever [Ebon] may accomplish in his little corner of the world, there are still tens of thousands of books out there written by people who either are not believers in inerrancy or are indifferent to it for the purposes of their text even if they do believe in it, but that nevertheless support the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that the Bible is an overall reliable historical record of the dealings of God with the people of Israel, and more so as we approach the New Testament. Therefore, all that [Ebon] would have accomplished is to show that the Bible is not inerrant, but he would still have to confront the problem of overall reliability. What are the odds, I ask, that [Ebon] or anyone else could successfully refute the hundreds of other writers and their tens of thousands of books, articles, and speeches that have supported the general reliability the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ? What would [Ebon] do, we wonder, to refute the works of the likes of John P. Meier, Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright, or James D. G. Dunn - disbelievers in any sort of inerrancy who nevertheless affirm that the data gives positive proof that Jesus Christ is Lord? It's not too hard to guess that [Ebon] taking on these giants would be much the same as Moe, Larry and Curly taking on Stephen Hawking! My point, then, is that even if [Ebon] should win on any point, or any number of points, he would not have disproven Christianity. In fact he will not have even joined the battle to do so.
So, sorry, Bud, that mask you are wearing only scares Michael Jackson. Continuing:

That last time I checked, biblical inerrantists say ALL of the bible is without error. That's an awful lot of bible commentaries you are going to be writing to "properly" defend biblical inerrancy.

Yep, and we've already done over 1500 articles, plus Glenn Miller's stuff is there. And?

Do you know any Christians who have written multi-volume commentaries on each and every aspect of the bible that could have a possible error? You know! Somebody who has authoritatively resolved all textual disputes, all translation disputes, all doctrinal disputes?

Such a book would cost thousands of dollars and require a wheelbarrow, but there's no need for it to be in one book or set of books. It's actually all out there, and Bud's lack of knowledge of this gives us one more reason not to take him or those of similar ideology seriously. They seem to assume that the library of defense for our side consists of ETDAV and a few tomes by Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler. Who can take seriously someone like Bud who doesn't even know what's out there?

No, you don't. yet each of these areas is a possible source of biblical error.

Yes, I do, as noted. This is someone who would not read Witherington's Jesus the Sage because it had words like "hypostasis" in it.

If your own understanding of "complete and thorough" be used, you will NEVER properly defend biblical inerrancy. How are you going to prove that every verse of the bible is without error, when just exactly what books should be in the bible and which Hebrew and Greek texts ARE the bible, have been in dispute since the day they were created?

Well, to begin, not every verse has required defense at some time; I know of no one who disputes 2 Kings 5:23, for example, or has a problem with it. Even Dennis McKinsey, he of the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, looked to have stuck a pin in only 5% of the verses in the whole Bible. Beyond that Bud alludes to the canon dispute which for us is "been there, done that" (see Canon entry) though he apparently doesn't realize it, and moreover, shoots himself in the foot, for if he is right here, then he only lends credence to my own case that such Skeptics as he is -- as far behind in their study as they are -- are not worth listening to.

Linguistics/language -- indeed three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Criticizing the Bible in English is a hallmark of critics, who must inevitably resort to one of several excuses: "The translators obviously thought this was good enough, so that settles it." (It never occurs to them to ask why a certain translation choice was made,

That's false, The NIV was made to offer the modern Christian English reader a bible in his own form of English, the KJV was made to update the Bishops Bible, the NASB was geared toward those who desire a more formal translation, the Living bible a more dynamic one. are you serious? Your intense dogmatism against bible critics causes you to say things that are patent nonsense.

How this answers the point made, I am hard pressed to discern. Bud tells us of all these English Bibles that were made -- well, what of it? None of this answers what I specifically said. But then again, Bud seems to be losing it as we progress:

or to make a critical study of the word in question as needed;

That's also false, F*** T***, a bible critic, did a study on the contradiction between Acts 9 and Acts 26, concerning whether the men with Paul "heard" anything certain when Paul had his conversion experience. Doesn't matter even if T*** was wrong, YOU are wrong to say "most bible critics" fail to make a critical study of the word in question as needed. I can assure you that as a bible critic myself, I can easily anticipate what my Christian readers will object to, and I word my criticisms to account for that. I would never be so sloppy as to just point to two verses and say that's it. You talk as if you have never read a single bible critic in your life.

A few points here. First, the person whose name we bleeped is one we now call "Skeptic X" and who is the prime example of the sort of incompetence we have described. Second, though the study did appear in X's newsletter, it was actually Dan Barker, not X, who did the study. Third, Barker did fail to do critical and thorough study, for what he said no one would argue linguistically, I found in a lexicon. Fourth, as we showed here, Barker did NOT do a thorough study, for he did not even consider that the issue was not a matter of linguistics, but of standard Greco-Roman rhetorical method. I rather doubt that Bud could ever have anticipated, before now, an appeal to Greco-Roman rhetoric, and rest assured I have read plenty of Bible critics -- which is why I wrote the article in the first place. Besides all this, Barker and Bud, two people, don't tell us much about "most" Bible critics. I have read many, many of them. The vast majority are incompetent.

Literature -- One prominent critic advises people to "read the Bible like a newspaper." That is absolutely the worst advice that can be given for reading any text that isn't a newspaper. The genres of the Bible include narrative, poetry, proverbial literature, wisdom discourse, a treaty (that's what Deuteronomy is, believe it or not!), legal codes, genealogies, biography (that is what the Gospels are!), personal letters and general letters, rhetoric (an art form in the ancient world), riposte, and apocalyptic. Treating each one as a newspaper -- written yesterday and with our own ideas in mind -- is a mistake constantly made by critics who impose their own absurd genre-demands on the text.

You Christians are know for discounting a literal interpretation of a Psalmic phrase JUST because the psalms are poetry, as if poetry was an automatic guarantee that the language is symbolical or allegorical. Wrong. You are very happy to interpret it literally in Psalm 16 and Psalm 22, right?

I didn't see an answer to the point either, and what Bud offers seems to be no more than an accusation that such genre considerations are used as conveniences. Bud provides no specific charge other than these vague allusions to Ps. 16 and 22, so it's hard to say what his point is, and no one said diddly about automatic guarantees, which is just another example of why the Buds of the world don't deserve the time of day: they don't understand arguments, and then assume what your argument is.

That's quite a list, but there's one more note to add -- the holistic ability to put all of it together. How serious is this? Very. A carefully crafted argument about a text being an interpolation can be undermined by a single point from Greco-Roman rhetoric.

Not on your life. Interpolations are decided by matters of textual criticism, the weight of the textual evidence, sometimes using 'conjectural emendation', if Bruce Metzger, your textual hero, has taught you anything (apparently not), with preference being given the majority of the time, but not always, to the readings found in the "earliest and most widespread" manuscripts.

Here Bud stuck his foot in his mouth, because he had no idea what I was referring to. I was referring here to a rather silly argument by Infidels.org denizen Robert Price (see here) that 1 Cor. 15:3ff was an interpolation. He crafted a very careful set of arguments for the text being an interpolation, based not on textual evidence (he admitted the passage was in all mss.) but on other bases. The coup de grace for his argument was a finding I made showing that the passage fits into 1 Cor. 15 as a whole perfectly in like with GR rhetorical structures, which rendered all the rest of his arguments moot, and in fact directly destabilized some of them. It had nothing to do with majority of mss, dates of mss, or any such thing that Metzger would have done more than laugh at. Yet another reason Skeptics like Bud should be put away and ignored: they like to step forward, and step in it in the process.

A claim having to do with psychology can be destroyed by a simple observation from the social sciences.

That's crazy, as psychology is part of "social science". Sure, the psychological point being made might be wrong by using social science, but only because that social science employed better psychology. Your distinction between psychology and social science is false.

Whether psychology is a subset of social sciences or not makes little difference, and the rest of this makes little sense and says not a word against my point. This is actually in relation to specific arguments made once in favor of an "insane Jesus" theory, in which comments by Jesus, interpreted by an uneducated critic in favor of mental imbalance, were actually shown by social data to reflect honor-claim practice of the period. Bud has now crammed his other foot in his mouth, by again assuming to know what we are talking about. (Skeptics of this sort also routinely trap themselves, as an aside.)

Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrifutible Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts.

What about swashbuckling internet apologists who have had their credentials exposed as insufficient to the task by bible critics of the past, who make up websites called "apologetics101", who say "the" bible doesn't have any mistakes, when they themselves cannot possibly have this sort of complete knowledge enough to know this for sure? Should we give them our attention? Should we pay attention to people who make blanket statements that all parts of the bible are without errors, when they cannot possibly know everything there is to know about the whole bible? How can one say "there are no errors in the bible' WITHOUT having the same sort of complete and thorough education you demand of the critics? Faith?

What about them? Bud apparently has not tuned in to my criticisms of populist apologetics like ETDAV, and has failed to note that my links to other apologetics sites are fairly limited. The top two I link to are Miller's ThinkTank and the Apologetics Index, the latter of which relies heavily on the works of scholars. So the answer is, no, don't pay attention to "Apologetics 101" either unless you are just getting into things and need to get your feet wet.

After this Bud sort of let Mr. Hyde out a bit. This is where the contrast to Kyle gets most marked:

They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes. Skeptics with largo egos who complain that this site does not always link to the articles it is addressing need to be told that their efforts -- engaging what I will call from here on "trailer park scholarship" -- do not deserve links.

Being sinners, they do not deserve the glory other Christian would give them when they see that you are full of sh*t and have let them down in their hopes about biblical inerrancy. I don't fall for your smoke and mirrors, F**** T*** has kicked your a*s so many times before, it's only expected that you would concoct this bullsh*t hypocritical double-standard fiasco to justify your hiding. Those who defend inerrancy have the same responsibilities that you burden the critic with in this article, but are you an expert in any of your own listed fields? Again, it doesn't take an expert to point out one legitimate flaw in the system, but it DOES take an expert to defend the WHOLE system. YOU INERRANTISTS are the ones that need all the expertise, because you pontificate that this book of many different subjects, authors, writing styles, texts, translations, canons, DOESN'T have any errors. You KNOW you take it on faith, like a good little lamb.

Backing through Bud's tortuous sentence structure, and beyond the repetitions, we have challenged Bud to appear on TheologyWeb to enter a debate with us. As of this typing, he has entered two debates, and you can see the results of that linked on the debate archives page.

The Aryan Stormfront page may as well complain that Holocaust memorial sites do not link to them; or, the Flat Earth Society may as well demand links from professional geology and geography departments at college websites. Who are these people trying to kid? Their scholarship, as a whole, is reckless and pitiable; what they know, they have learned from reading a few popular books with no conception of the broader issues and fields at hand. Why does this site need to link to some injudicious blunderbuss who claims that Lev. 25:23, which has God saying the land is "mine," has to be read figuratively because if it were literal, then it would cause problems because people would then covet the land owned by God and that would cause them to break the commandment against coveting?

Because it would create the opportunity to have your a*s kicked, but if you are attempting to solicit donations, it is very easy to see why you have created all this smoke and mirrors. You offer links to critical sites, and you'll be making about 70 % less in your begging efforts. But you worldly inerrantists know that money buys happiness, so whatever is in the way of money (in your case, links to articles that refute you), by all means, get rid of it.

Funny thing about this is, of all the people who donate to this site, about 60% have never heard of Bud's hero who he claims I am hiding from, and the other 40% -- which includes my most faithful and substantive donors -- have seen Skeptic X's work (they did not need a link to find it, actually), and still aren't convinced. So it seems I should continue as I have been going.

Why do we need to link to people who refuse to come to the social world of the Bible on its own terms, and accuse scholars who are experts in the social world of the NT of being ignorant, based on nothing more than a bare English reading of the texts?

Well! IDIOT! That's the whole f*cking issue..DO the critics indeed constantly betray how ill-equipped they are, as you insist they do? What a better way for your readers to get the objective edge on this than to link to those articles? Instead of you prancing around like god and expecting your readers to take your word for it? IF YOUR BIBLE CRITICS ARE STUPID AS YOU SAY, LINKING TO THEIR ARTICLES WOULD PROVE THIS TO YOUR AUDIENCE, RIGHT? DUH!

Well, Bud, the Flat Earth Society to the US Geological Survey: "What a better way for your readers to get the objective edge on this than to link to our articles? Instead of you prancing around like god and expecting your readers to take your word for it? IF YOUR ROUND EARTH CRITICS ARE STUPID AS YOU SAY, LINKING TO THEIR ARTICLES WOULD PROVE THIS TO YOUR AUDIENCE, RIGHT? DUH!"

Probably ought to suggest to FES that they try that tack.

These people deserve not links, but contempt and obscurity.

Wrong, you are frightened, and your irrational justification for denying your readers direct access to rebuttal articles from bible critics shows it. You do indeed fear those articles. You could only promote your cause by engaging the enemy and showing to the views how utterly stupid they are. No, they will kick your a*s in front of your friends, and since your friends are the only ones that would donate money..

The Flat Earth Society says: "You are frightened, and your irrational justification for denying your readers direct access to rebuttal articles from round earth critics shows it. You do indeed fear those articles. You could only promote your cause by engaging the enemy and showing to the views how utterly stupid they are." And once again, friends of the ministry so far seem to not have any trouble locating those articles that Bud seems to think will convert them to Skepticism. The excuse no doubt will be that they are mindless, brainwashed drones as well. Meanwhile the Geologic Survey is quaking in their boots.

Catch is, such sources are few and far between, and I have yet to meet a critic of the Bible who would qualify on that count, and one that doesn't think that they are more skilled than they are.

Yeah, if a layman bible critics successfully rebutts you, you will not acknowledge or respood because you define him out of existence, after all, he ain't a scholar. So I guess that means that you will accept the critics' justification for refusing to respond to you, because you aren't a scholar either? Your logic is stupid and one-sided.

I imagine the critics will want to use whatever reason they can to avoid direct discussion.

Another pushback: So what do you suggest we do, huh? Answer: Well, if you have any spare time, use it. We recommend books here -- pick an area you think will interest you; try to become as good as you can with it, meet up with people who know a lot about their own areas of interests -- if you don't have time to get into a great deal of it, cooperate somehow. If you don't have time at all and can't make it, work with someone who does. Teamwork is better than nonwork.

I've done that, are you willing to engage me in a debate on biblical inerrancy or any other subject that parts atheists from Christians? I'm ready. I know you aren't a scholar, but I still challenge you. And you offer the chicken challenge, so we'll just have to see who is challenging who. I'm not a scholar either, so I hope you don't give us any song and dance bullsh*t about refusing to take me on because I'm not as educated as you would like. The less educated I am, the better for the cause of inerrantists who know more and could kick my but in a debate right? You have NO reason to back out, and I've got all year to schedule a debate at your convenience.

Bud did accept our challenge on TWeb. I also said nothing about refusing to take such persons on.

We may have more to add to this at a later date, but it's enough for now to settle with this conclusion: Don't take any critic's word in an age when any person with typing skills can post a website claiming just about anything. Chances are they haven't done a fraction of the homework they need to do to be a reputable commentator.

Why take a chance? Why not allow your readers to see your critics' articles? After all, stupidity in the opposition can only benefit you and your cause, right?

So would say, the Flat Earth Society...well, that concludes Bud's diatribe, and in closing we'd like to refresh the reader with Kyle's own comments on Bud's commentary:

Hmmm. Sounds like an angry young man. If he is interested in discussion, he has chosen a poor way to start it with his invective. As you know, I am actively attempting to persuade Skeptics against representing our position in this fashion.
As for the points he makes, I think he is missing a key distinction. It's reasonable for a layperson to be skeptical of the "miracles" in the Bible or to doubt that it (or any history!) is inerrant. The problem arises when your run of the mill Skeptic (or Christian for that matter) picks up the Bible cold, and decides to interpret it for themself. That is becuase the Bible is an ancient and complex document which is impossible to properly understand until it is placed in the correct socio-historical context. Luckily for us laypersons, generations of men and women have dedicated their lives to studying the Bible. Thus, for any particular passage or issue, one can consult a wealth of scholars. Of course, the scholars are often divided, so it is still necessary to make some decisions--often based on one's world view. But to bypass the scholars in favor of one's own "common-sense" interpretation is sheer folly. After all, even career Bible scholars aren't experts in every field which pertains to the Bible. Thus, the scholars themselves must rely upon the work of other scholars.
Isn't that refreshing? Well, enough for now. Bud is on the line and his scholarship has turned out to be directly in opposition to his capacity to use words like "bullsh*t". For the crowd I have in mind, such verbiage represents the height of their scholarship.

http://www.tektonics.org/print.php4

[Nick Hallandale]

So, the point of debate is this:

Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?

I can prove 100% that the Gospels were edited.
In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus uses the phrase
"kingdom of Heaven" about 30 times.
But in none of the other Gospels, does Jesus
say "kingdom of Heaven".
In the other Gospels, Jesus uses the parallel
expression "kingdom of God".
So, when Jesus was actually speaking and
preaching, about the "kingdom", did he actually
say "kingdom of Heaven", or did he actually
say "kingdom of God"?

It seems evident, that the actual words of Jesus
were edited in respect to the "kingdom"

This editing of Jesus' words seems like a minor
point. However once you accept the premise that
Jesus was edited, you realize that you could
never be sure if other words, verses, or paragraphs
weren't edited, corrected, enhanced, magnified,
or exploded into miracles.

[SeekingTheTruth]

quote]The bible i recognize now is the Jewish bible, The Old Testament, until I am proved otherwise.

And therein lies the problem. The only honest starting point is to say "I don't know" - anything else involves self deception. You say the OT is true until proven otherwise - but any belief system can be rationalized, and thus there is no way to absolutely prove it false. This is true of all religions, atheism, materialism, and deism.

[/quote][/quote]
This is not true. Everything in the Torah works out. I've had numerous questions answered, so for me the Torah is true. I can't find a fault. There are many prophecies in the Torah. One of them is that the Jewish nantion will never be many in munber. Just that alone is a mindboggling prophecy. If a ''Man" started this religion, he would most certainly not include something like that. Also, it drives mathemeticians crazy. A religion thats been around for over 3000 years but only have approx. 14 million people.
-If anyone has any questions that may disprove the Torah or even just might challenge Jewish ways, please ask me. If I can not find an answer then my thought on Judaism will change, till then The Torah is 100 percent perfect.

It is believed that it is perfect, and nothing can be added or subtracted (Deuteronomy 13:1)(

But Deuteronomy could be false. We must be careful to avoid circular reasoning.

-Thats not my point, if christians believe that it is true,which they do, how can they add the New Testament. The New Testament is invalid and that leaves Christians with the Torah, which doesn't define them as Christians.

One of them is the mere fact that it states numerous times that the all the Israelites of the generation of receiving the Ten Commandments were present, approx. 13 million. If this was not true and the event which can prove G-d gave us the Old testament is false then the first generation of that time would not accept the new, unique, and very hard religion.

You are mistaken. History shows us that people are quite willing to accept very hard religions. Look at how successful Mohammed was at converting people, and the religion he created is very hard indeed.

-But Muhammad and Islam came after Judaism so there was such a conept of a hard religion. But since Judaism was the first it was completely different then any other religions the Jews came across.
And anyway Islam wouldn't come about without Judaism and the Torah, so too Christianity.

Second, Torah Codes. I can't validate codes on the New Testament because I didn't look into it but codes in the Old Testament, the Torah, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. For it to work out everything has to perfect and it is.

I am assuming this is similar to Bible codes - I'm sorry, but his has been disproven so thoroughly that I am amazed anyone still believes it. If you take any book, and jumble around the words enough, you will find all sorts of patterns. I am not just claiming this, it has been tested and proven quite convincingly.

-There are many skeptics and people who claim that it is not true. But don't take their word for it. See for yourself. Go to a presentation that uses the Torah and you will never have two thought about it again. Iv'e been to one and there is no denying it.

[Lotan]

There are many prophecies in the Torah. One of them is that the Jewish nantion will never be many in munber. Just that alone is a mindboggling prophecy.

"Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever." Exodus 32:13

Mindboggling indeed! What are you talking about?

[SeekingTheTruth]

There are many prophecies in the Torah. One of them is that the Jewish nantion will never be many in munber. Just that alone is a mindboggling prophecy.

"Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever." Exodus 32:13

Mindboggling indeed! What are you talking about?

I was waiting for that... Thank you.
Don't forget that Christains and Muslims are descendants of Abraham.
As for the Jews it is said that they will always be small in number, MATHEMATICALLY MINDBOGGLING.

[Lotan]

As for the Jews it is said that they will always be small in number, MATHEMATICALLY MINDBOGGLING.

"it is said" where?
"it is said" by whom?

[SeekingTheTruth]

SeekingTheTruth wrote:
As for the Jews it is said that they will always be small in number, MATHEMATICALLY MINDBOGGLING.

"it is said" where?
"it is said" by whom?

I'm sorry but I don't remember off the top of my head where the verse is located. I did however aske my Rabbi and I will have the place for you on Monday......STAY TUNED.

[juliod]

Don't forget that Christains and Muslims are descendants of Abraham.

You mean that christians and muslims are semitic in ethnicity? Some are, obviously, but most are not. My mind, I have to say, fails to boggle.

DanZ

[SeekingTheTruth]

You mean that christians and muslims are semitic in ethnicity? Some are, obviously, but most are not. My mind, I have to say, fails to boggle.

Ask Christians who they come from. Ask Muslims who they come from.
Both Abraham. The prophecy is true.