Am a true christian and a strong believer of Jesus Christ,but please read this "for God so love the world,that He gave his only begotten Son,, "-JOHN 3:16

could it mean that God so love the world that he gave (OFFERED) his begotten son,   or  For God so love the world that he gave ( IT TO) his begotten son, what do u think we all understand english language right, am confused but at least not when we have modern translations of the bible. share your ideas on this, lets be open to learn and not be abusive, God bless ya'll

It simply means he loved the world so much that he killed his son in order to gain the world. chikina.

There's absolutely nuttin there to confuse anyone.

FOR GOD SO LOVE THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
As a means of redeeming us from our sins,HE had to come in flesh
to die for us.Note that "his only begotten son"that the bible talks about
is also same as God.The world has alwaz been God's own so no need
giving it to himself again.He only gave us his son/himself.

Okija_juju:

It simply means he loved the world so much that he killed his son in order to gain the world. chikina.

He didn't kill his son in order to gain the world.
Knowing that you aren't a christain I'll prefer to stay outt'a their issues.Thanks.

Missy B:

There's absolutely nuttin there to confuss anyone.

FOR GOD SO LOVE THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
As a means of reddeming us from our sins,HE had to come in flesh
to die for us.Note that "his only begotten son"that the bible talks about
is also same as God.The world has alwaz been God's own so no need
giving it to himself again.He only gave us his son/himself.

For God - _{Father (according to the bible)}
So loved the world - Earth and its inhabitants/humans
That he gave - _{He handed over or according to the bible used his son to pay the ultimate sacrifice (which is his life) for sin.}
His only begotten son - Jesus

_{Note; Put it together, he used his sons life to pay for sin, in other to gain the world.}

Missy B:

He didn't kill his son in order to gain the world.
Knowing that you aren't a christain I'll prefer to stay outt'a their issues.Thanks.

But he sent his son to die, which is just like killing your son. The price of Jesus's death is the world going to heaven.

I dont need to be a christian to understand this.

The carnal mind cannot understand the things of God.

Well I'm so not in the mood for an argument tonight.
Off to hit the sheet.Tah Tah.

Missy B:

The carnal mind cannot understand the things of God.

Well I'm so not in the mood for arguement tonight.
Off to hit the sheet.Tah Tah.

Atimes you dont need more than a canal mind to understand the things of God.

Have a gudnyt.

"for God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son"

The above simply means that out of His love for the world, God gave his begotten son. There is no place in the passage that it says that God killed His son or gave His son to be killed. It simply said that "He gave." To give is to offer. God offered His son to the world. "To give" in this passage also means "to send." One can also say it this way: "for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten to the world."

If I send my son to you, or if I give my son to you; this does not mean that I gave it to you to be killed.

Then what is the purpose of God giving or sending His son to the world? There answere is found also in the same verse. The full verse reads:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

The bold parts clearly shows why God sent His begotten son. God sent His son so that we may listen to Him(His son) and believe Him(His son), i.e. believe His words. To believe entails living accordinly. One who truly believes His words will also live by them(His words).

Only by living living in accord with the words of Jesus can one gain redemption. Redemption lies in His words and not in His death on the cross. His death on the cross remains a murder committed by mankind against the innocent, loving and holy Son of God.

Also, according to the Gospel, during the Transfiguration a voice said:

"This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"(Mathew 17:5)

Here we are once again told to listen to HIM, i.e believe Him. The voice did not say: "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; kill or sacrifice Him for your sins".

Therefore the purpose of God sending Jesus is for Him to give us His words, which we must Listen to, believe, and live by in-order to be saved.

God does not commit murder. Any body who claims that God sent His son to be killed commits blasphemy

For god so loved the world that he sent/gave his son to the middle east?(is the middle east the whole world? ) why didnt he send him to china, indai, the americas or africa?

mazaje:

For god so loved the world that he sent/gave his son to the middle east?(is the middle east the whole world? ) why didnt he send him to china, indai, the americas or africa?

@mazaje
The answer to your question is very simple.
I will give you an analogy. If America sends a professor to Nigeria to teach Nigerians rocket science. The professor will have to go to a top Nigerian university, where their are people knowledgeable enough to understand him. There he will stay and teach; and prepare the Nigerian students for a carrier in rocket science. These graduates of rocket science will the disperse to other Nigerian universities and spread their knowledge.
America cannot divide their professor into thousands in-order to send them to every school in Nigeria; Neither will America send thousands of their professors to Nigeria. This is definitely not an effective way because it will depreciate Americas number of professors, and besides Nigeria may not be able to provide for all the professors in America. Therefore the only right thing for America to do is to send one. Why send millions when one can do the job?
The primary and secondary school students in Nigeria will have to wait till they are mature enough to enter university and learn this rocket science.
In this case, eventhough America did not send a professor to each school in Nigeria, the fact remains that America sent a professor to Nigeria. All the newspaper headlines will read: "America sends a professor to Nigeria." This is called generalization; it is a figure of speech.

This is a coarse analogy though.

Now apply this analogy to the mission of Jesus.
Jesus alone was sufficient to fulfill His mission. And the only right place for Him to be born is among the Jews who were the most spiritually developed at that time. Hence the Jews stood a better ground to understand Jesus, because the Jews had for a long time prior to the birth of Jesus, sought God. The Jews were the only people mature enough to understand Jesus, because the Jews were already familiar with the WILL OF GOD which Jesus came to explain to the world, i.e, the Jews already had the ten commandments. An understanding of the ten commandments is like a prerequisite for a better understanding of the message of Jesus. Because the ten commandments and the message of Jesus issued from the same source--GOD. One can also say that the message of Jesus is an enlightenment of the ten commandments because Jesus threw more light in the understanding of the ten commandments.

Out of the Jews, Jesus chose a few that He instructed particularly and permitted them to spread the knowledge to the rest of the world. As the rest of the world matured spiritually, God allowed the message to reach them. Just as one has to mature in school(Pass from secondary school) before he/she could be taught calculus.

Also among the Jew at that time were the only people who's priority was to do the will of God. The only one God, WHOM they call JEHOVAH. Majority of the rest of the world still worshiped elemental forces like Jupiter, Venus and etc. It will be impossible for them to understand the message of Jesus which was based on the knowledge of the only one and True God. If Jesus had gone to other parts of the world and spoke of the divinity only one God instead the worship of many gods, the people will kill Him the same day that He opened His mouth just as they did to many prophets.

Among the Jews, He was able teach His Message for three years before they killed Him.


Besides middle east is a part of the world. Therefore somebody who goes from Heaven to the middle east, goes to the world(generally speaking). Sometimes when I am travelling back to Nigeria, I simply tell my friends here that I am travelling back to Africa. This is correct, eventhough I am not travelling to every part of Africa.

Therefore whichever way you look at it, it is right to say that God sent His son to the world, since the middle east is a part of the world.

justcool:

@mazaje
The answer to your question is very simple.
I will give you an analogy. If America sends a professor to Nigeria to teach Nigerians rocket science. The professor will have to go to a top Nigerian university, where their are people knowledgeable enough to understand him. There he will stay and teach; and prepare the Nigerian students for a carrier in rocket science. These graduates of rocket science will the disperse to other Nigerian universities and spread their knowledge.
America cannot divide their professor into thousands in-order to send them to every school in Nigeria; Neither will America send thousands of their professors to Nigeria. This is definitely not an effective way because it will depreciate Americas number of professors, and besides Nigeria may not be able to provide for all the professors in America. Therefore the only right thing for America to do is to send one. Why send millions when one can do the job?
The primary and secondary school students in Nigeria will have to wait till they are mature enough to enter university and learn this rocket science.
In this case, eventhough America did not send a professor to each school in Nigeria, the fact remains that America sent a professor to Nigeria. All the newspaper headlines will read: "America sends a professor to Nigeria." This is called generalization; it is a figure of speech.

This is a coarse analogy though.

Now apply this analogy to the mission of Jesus.
Jesus alone was sufficient to fulfill His mission. And the only right place for Him to be born is among the Jews who were the most spiritually developed at that time. Hence the Jews stood a better ground to understand Jesus, because the Jews had for a long time prior to the birth of Jesus, sought God. The Jews were the only people mature enough to understand Jesus, because the Jews were already familiar with the WILL OF GOD which Jesus came to explain to the world, i.e, the Jews already had the ten commandments. An understanding of the ten commandments is like a prerequisite for a better understanding of the message of Jesus. Because the ten commandments and the message of Jesus issued from the same source--GOD. One can also say that the message of Jesus is an enlightenment of the ten commandments because Jesus threw more light in the understanding of the ten commandments.

Out of the Jews, Jesus chose a few that He instructed particularly and permitted them to spread the knowledge to the rest of the world. As the rest of the world matured spiritually, God allowed the message to reach them. Just as one has to mature in school(Pass from secondary school) before he/she could be taught calculus.

Also among the Jew at that time were the only people who's priority was to do the will of God. The only one God, WHOM they call JEHOVAH. Majority of the rest of the world still worshiped elemental forces like Jupiter, Venus and etc. It will be impossible for them to understand the message of Jesus which was based on the knowledge of the only one and True God. If Jesus had gone to other parts of the world and spoke of the divinity only one God instead the worship of many gods, the people will kill Him the same day that He opened His mouth just as they did to many prophets.

Among the Jews, He was able teach His Message for three years before they killed Him.


Besides middle east is a part of the world. Therefore somebody who goes from Heaven to the middle east, goes to the world(generally speaking). Sometimes when I am travelling back to Nigeria, I simply tell my friends here that I am travelling back to Africa. This is correct, eventhough I am not travelling to every part of Africa.

Therefore whichever way you look at it, it is right to say that God sent His son to the world, since the middle east is a part of the world.

i don't even know how to respond to all the make belief analogy you just posted here. are you for real? what do you mean by the jews being the only people that know god and have the ten commandments? it says that for god so love the world that he gave his only begotten son, i will rephrase it and say for the god of the jews/christains so loved the jews/christains that they believed he sent his son jesus to the middle east not to the entire world.

you said jews were the only people familiar with the will of god which jesus came to teach, lol i thought the same muderous, vindictive, blood loving and slavery espousing god in the old testament is the same jesus that came into the world, by the way what are you saying here? the biblical god is just the way the jews/christains use to understand and explain away things that they really have no or little understanding about. while allah is what the arabs use to understand the world and explain things they have little or no knowledge about. as you stated in your post zues, bangal, ahproditee etc were all gods that people used to express them selves and explain away what they have little or no knowledge of, let me give you and example from the bible so that you can understand better what i am saying.

Daniel speaks of a vision he recieved from god concerning a giant goat’s horn knocking the stars from the sky down to the ground where the goat “stamped upon them”(stars) (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we can also be decidedly certain that Daniel believed stars were tiny lights hanging above the earth.(science has explained and proved that daniel's position and assertion are false) Otherwise, how could his monstrous goat stamp upon them?(if you understand the study of the universe and stars you will know that a star is like a sun and the center of a whole solar system which is much more bigger than the earth) More importantly, how could someone divinely inspired write something so blatantly preposterous? In the New Testament, Matthew and Mark both record Jesus foretelling of an era when the stars shall “fall from heaven” (24:29 and 13:25, respectively, how can stars fall from heaven?). Jesus, a supposedly perfect human being who was supposedly the only son of a supposedly perfect god, wasn’t immune to scientific ignorance either.

mazaje:

For god so loved the world that he sent/gave his son to the middle east?(is the middle east the whole world? ) why didnt he send him to china, indai, the americas or africa?

permit me but your question is very foolish. Your response to justcool's clear explanation is even worse.
If Christ had come to China, you'd ask why He wasnt sent to Africa. If Christ came to Ghana, you'd ask why He wasnt sent to the Jews. In essence, with the stupid . . . God can never win. Would it have made more sense if Christ had divided Himself into billions and sent Himself to every tribe at once?

Ok lets look at another scenario . . . millions of Nigerians living in Nigeria will NEVER see their Yar Adua face to face . . . does that mean he is president only to those who can see and talk to him?

Read justcool's post again, it made tons of sense (even just the first 5 sentences was enough) . . . read it without a closed mind which is simply waiting to entrench your flawed position.

mazaje:

Daniel speaks of a vision he recieved from god concerning a giant goat’s horn knocking the stars from the sky down to the ground where the goat “stamped upon them”(stars) (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we can also be decidedly certain that Daniel believed stars were tiny lights hanging above the earth.(science has explained and proved that daniel's position and assertion are false) Otherwise, how could his monstrous goat stamp upon them?(if you understand the study of the universe and stars you will know that a star is like a sun and the center of a whole solar system which is much more bigger than the earth) More importantly, how could someone divinely inspired write something so blatantly preposterous?

Again permit me because i love to call a spade a spade. This is a most foolish argument.
1. In the first sentence you correctly say that what Daniel saw was a VISION not a reality.
2. It is 110% certain that Daniel did not take his vision LITERARILY to mean a goat would be large enough to knock stars to the ground. Verse 15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.

- In essence, Daniel knew what he saw was simply a symbol and not a scientific reality.

If you bothered to read the interpretation of that dream, the goat symbolises a King, the horns other Kings who grew out of the first kingdom, the stars symbolise people, nations, kingdoms.

It is more than evident that the person who has a serious problem here is not Daniel but you. It is simply a problem of hypocrisy, selective readiing and blatant lying.
Daniel wasnt talking of the physical stars and Sun, you're the one forcing it into the narrative to bring out a very stupid point. Shame on you . . . even if you disagree with the bible, try not to lie.

hmm, na waooo, bible scholars.

davidylan:

permit me but your question is very foolish. Your response to justcool's clear explanation is even worse.
If Christ had come to China, you'D ask why He wasnt sent to Africa. If Christ came to Ghana, you'D ask why He wasnt sent to the Jews. In essence, with the stupid . . . God can never win. Would it have made more sense if Christ had divided Himself into billions and sent Himself to every tribe at once?

Ok lets look at another scenario . . . millions of Nigerians living in Nigeria will NEVER see their Yar Adua face to face . . . does that mean he is president only to those who can see and talk to him?

Read justcool's post again, it made tons of sense (even just the first 5 sentences was enough) . . . read it without a closed mind which is simply waiting to entrench your flawed position.

you are just grasping at staws in trying to make a nonsense argumet sound reasonable, for god so loved the world it says, i am using the characteritics of your so called god to explain the senario, your god claims he is almighty and all powe full and can do all things why then did he have to send himself to the middle east? if he is that all powerful and all knowing he will send himself to the whole world at once which i believe an all powerful being should be able to do. sending himself to the middle east is nothing but a man made creation. i repeat the god of the bible is the way the jews/christains use to understand things and explain away things they just dont understand. here is another example

in Genesis, Jacob successfully alters the color patterns on lambs and goats so that he could differentiate the stronger ones from the weaker ones. He purportedly accomplished this feat by placing peeled tree branches in front of the mating livestock (Genesis 30:37-39). Following his absurd achievement, an angel of God visits him in a dream and praises him for his work in genetics (Genesis 31:11-12). As someone with a thorough background in human physiology, I hold the opinion that this is easily the single most embarrassing error contained between the Bible’s covers. Peeled branches have absolutely no effect on an organism’s appearance; DNA does. As an extremely quick summary of the topic, the general rule is that half of an offspring’s DNA comes from each parent with the more dominant type being physically expressed. The specific genes in the DNA sequence are the determining factor for the animals’ colors. Of course, such advanced understanding was way beyond the scope of the ancient Hebrew. Divine inspiration obviously doesn’t resonate from this passage either.

The story of Moses relaying God’s commands to the people also drops the ball when you consider which animals the almighty deemed unclean. He says hares are not clean enough to eat because they chew their cud (Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7). I’m not sure where he gets this impression because it’s the exact opposite of reality. The obvious solution to this problem is that no all-knowing deity told Moses anything of the sort.

davidylan:

Again permit me because i love to call a spade a spade. This is a most foolish argument.
1. In the first sentence you correctly say that what Daniel saw was a VISION not a reality.
2. It is 110% certain that Daniel did not take his vision LITERARILY to mean a goat would be large enough to knock stars to the ground. Verse 15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.

- In essence, Daniel knew what he saw was simply a symbol and not a scientific reality.

If you bothered to read the interpretation of that dream, the goat symbolises a King, the horns other Kings who grew out of the first kingdom, the stars symbolise people, nations, kingdoms.

It is more than evident that the person who has a serious problem here is not Daniel but you. It is simply a problem of hypocrisy, selective readiing and blatant lying.
Daniel wasnt talking of the physical stars and Sun, you're the one forcing it into the narrative to bring out a very stupid point. Shame on you . . . even if you disagree with the bible, try not to lie.

This is why i love christains they always have a way of explaining away things the way they see fit(thats the reason why there are over 30,000 sects of the religion each fightng against each other while using and reading the same ambigious bible) if they can't then they tell us that god behaves in a mysterious way, science and history still remains your worst enemy even jesus has no knowledge about the stars else why will he make this assertion in Mark 13:25(stars can not and will never fall from the sky). you said shame on me right the shame is on you for believeing stupid and meaningless fable written by 1st century men that have no knowledge of what is going on let me give you Another embarrassing tale of biblical nonsense is the construction of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. According to the bogus legend, everyone on earth spoke the same language when the erection of the tower began. Because the people of earth had a great desire to catch a glimpse of God, they built this supposed tower intending to breach the sky. As God didn’t like the possibility of people spotting him, he confused their languages to prevent the architects from understanding one another. Unable to continue construction, everyone with different languages went separate ways.

      This story is unfeasible for many reasons. The first problem with the incredulous account is the incongruency of the common language theme. We know that many different languages existed centuries before the story’s setting around 2500-2000 BCE(China and india were pretty much in exsistance at that time just to mention a few civilazations that were already existing). Not only that, but another Pentateuch author had said Noah’s sons separated according to their own tongues in the previous chapter (Genesis 10). At the very least, we have a major timeline discrepancy in need of an acceptable resolution. Furthermore, the notion that nineteenth century man had the architectural knowledge to build a tower even a mile high is ridiculous. To fathom that a group of ignorant ancient Hebrews could make an equivalent accomplishment is ludicrous.

      Interestingly, no divine inspiration is available as a possible excuse for the illogical story because God wasn’t siding with his people on this occasion! If he didn’t wish for the people to see him, he wouldn’t have provided the means for them to do so. Of course, the most obvious blunder is God’s supposed fear of us actually reaching him in the sky. To suggest that an omniscient god would destroy a building because he felt he was in danger of humans catching a glimpse of him is an equally ludicrous proposal. The aspects of this story once again go back to the ancient Hebrew belief that God eternally resided on top of a dome covering the earth. Since an omniscient deity would know that the people could not possibly reach him, he would not have stopped the tower’s construction for the specific reason provided by the Bible. The story cries of a myth.

science remains the greatest enemy of the hebrew god and his foot soldiers the writers of  Matthew also believes that blindness is a result of the devil’s inhabitance (12:22). Again, you don’t need the unverifiable nature of this wild claim explained to you. Damage to the optic nerve or detachment of the retina usually causes blindness. No devils or demons have ever demonstrated their involvement in this impairment. the writer of Luke purports that a woman’s crippled nature is also due to possession by a devil (13:11). While there are multitudes of unfortunate factors that can cripple a person, spiritual possession has never proven to be one of them. Luke and Matthew commit an additional medical error when they claim that devils and spirits cause seizures (9:39 and 17:15, respectively). Suffice to say, devils, demons, evil spirits, or any other fiendish creatures have never been known to cause seizures. These violent neurological events are the result of some physiological abnormality, such as a brain tumor, or an imbalance in electrical activity. When radical epilepsy manifestations are observed, however, it’s certainly understandable how a person with limited knowledge of human physiology could leap to the erroneous and fantastic conclusion that a demon might have possessed the individual in question. The Hebrew god once again fails to distinguish himself from the countless other ancient gods because his writers weren’t the least bit scientifically believable

When God is preparing to go on another murdering spree, he tells the people of Israel to smear blood on their doors so that he’ll know which homes are occupied by his chosen people (Exodus 12:13) (and people still believe he is all knowing lol). With this directive completed, he’s free to kill all the Egyptian firstborn male children without accidentally harming an Israelite, but why does he need blood on the doors to serve as a reminder if he knows everything? Jonah, like Cain before him, was able to leave the presence of God (Jonah 1:3). According to Zephaniah, God will search through Jerusalem with candles(lamps) and find people who scoff at him (1:12). Why would God need candles(lamps) to see? who writes this stuff? God needing candles(lamps) an all knowing and all powerful God needing candles(lamps) the story reeks of myth to me. Judges 1:19 says that God was with the men of Judah in a battle, yet they couldn’t drive out the enemies because the other side was riding upon chariots of iron. If God is with someone, shouldn’t this person be able to do the miracles that every other God-accompanied individual performs? Honestly, did authors bother to proofread their work centuries ago?

Let me still repeat the bible is the work of men trying to understand nature and the way things are, they coin things up and claim that a god told them to do so, when seeking revenge, an excuse to fight their enemies or when ever they want to steal or take away things that do not belong to them they invoke god, they come up with the god idea to commit evil and run away with it. Since God commits scores of violent acts randomly throughout the Old Testament, let’s look at a few examples. After delivering the Amorites into the hands of Joshua, he sends down a hailstorm in order to kill a large portion of the people who flee from battle (Joshua 10:8-11). God assists in the war between Barak and Sisera by surrounding Sisera’s army and forcing them to dismount from their chariots. Because of his intervention, Sisera’s entire army faces imminent death at the hands of Barak (Judges 4:14-15). God causes the Midianites to kill one another (Judges 7:22-23). He confuses the Philistines and causes them to kill one another (1 Samuel 14:20-23). He inflicts a number of people with blindness because Elisha asks him to do so (2 Kings 6:18). He causes a seven-year famine without specifying a reason (2 Kings 8:1). God kills Jeroboam because he’s the leader of the enemies (2 Chronicles 13:20). He kills Nabal without specifying a reason, but it’s probably because David desires his wife and other belongings (1 Samuel 25:38). God sends an angel to kill 185,000 men in an Assyrian camp because they’re enemies of his people (2 Kings 19:31-35). He plagues Azariah, a man labeled as a good King, with leprosy for the remainder of his life because he allows people to burn incense in a location displeasing to God (2 Kings 15:1-5). This is another great example of an overbearing punishment for breaking an asinine law. Some of our fellow humans were obviously destined to meet death early in life without any chance of redemption in God’s eyes.

      Counting just the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Red Sea incident, the ark gazers, the plagues, the census, and the battles in which God directly participated, I estimate that this terrible creature claims to have murdered one to two million people. Regrettably, we still haven’t discussed any of the instances in which God orders his people to kill others or when he “delivers armies” into the hands of the Israelites to be annihilated in battle. By this point in our discussion, God has already joined the elite company of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Zedong as the largest mass murderers in history.

When God wished certain people dead thousands of years ago, he was never confined to his own omnipotent powers. You might even agree that God was at his worst when he recruited others to assist with the scores of slaughters in the Old Testament. As initially difficult as it might be to accept, God often provided his followers with orders leading to outcomes even more horrific than before. This section will discuss the specific commands given by God and the consistently tragic results that follow. Try to keep everything in perspective. These aren’t numbers; they’re human beings.

      Recall the setting of God dishing out a plague over the golden calf worship. Immediately prior to the plague inflicted upon his people, God had ordered Moses and his loyal followers to “slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.” Three thousand men died at the hands of their peers in addition to those killed by the second punishment (Exodus 32:26-28).

      Later on, a group of followers from Moses’ camp observes a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Since such a despicable act was illegal in those days, they escort him back to Moses and inquire how they should handle the incident. Moses answers them by declaring that God is proclaiming, “the man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.” Following what they gullibly assume are God’s commands, Moses’ cult members take him outside the camp and stone him to death for picking up sticks on a day that he wasn’t permitted to do any work (Numbers 15:32-36). As you will soon realize, God encourages the Israelites to beat their slaves and rape women captured in warfare; picking up sticks on the Sabbath, however, will anger him enough to warrant a death sentence. Astounding!

      God advises Moses on a number of matters related to his appointed leadership. He is to cast any menstruating or leprous person out of the camp because God doesn’t want to be around those “dirty” people when he descends for a visit (Numbers 5:1-3). In other words, God wants no association with those who are more likely to need assistance, medical or otherwise. God also orders Moses to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan before destroying their possessions (Numbers 33:50-52). However, he should offer the people of distant cities a chance to become his slaves before killing them. If they refuse, the Israelites have the duty to kill the men and take the remaining people as plunder for themselves. In the cities that God delivers as inheritances, Moses should “save alive nothing that breatheth” because the helpless victims were taught to worship other gods (Deuteronomy 20:13-18).

      In two subsequent pillages, God delivers Sihon, King of Heshbon, into the hands of Moses at the battle of Jahaz. The Israelites murder him; conquer all of his cities; and murder every man, woman, and child residing within those cities per God’s instructions (Deuteronomy 2:32-35). Likewise, God delivers Og, King of Bashan, into the hands of Moses at the battle of Edrei. The Israelites faithfully obey their orders by murdering all the inhabitants so that they could acquire the land (Deuteronomy 3:1-4). This noble god orders Moses to kill anything that moves, and as the incredible list of wars in the Old Testament takes place, God’s followers would continue to do exactly as their unimaginably harsh leader commands them.

      When Joshua informs the Israelites of God’s decision to deliver the city of Jericho over to them, they topple its walls and kill every living thing in the city, except for a single harlot on espionage missions, before burning it to the ground (Joshua 6:16-24). Afterwards, God orders Joshua to infiltrate the city of Ai because he’s delivered it in likewise fashion. The Israelites also set Ai on fire and kill the 12,000 inhabitants running for their lives. The King of Ai is taken prisoner and later hanged (Joshua 8:19-29). Following the victories at Jericho and Ai, God commands Joshua to go on an unbelievable killing spree. The Israelites subsequently murder all the men, women, and children in Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish (along with the King of Gezer and his armies assisting Lachish), Eglon, Hebron, and Debir. Not a single life was spared during these invasions (Joshua 10:28-40). is this a loving, merciful and just god that orders his men to carry out all these evil things? why do people believe and accept all the lurid evil activities in the bible? i would'nt like to associate my self with that kind of person talkless of that kind of god.

mazaje mazaje 

personally myself i cannot fathom all the absurdities and the violence of the bible especially the pentateuch, so sickening for the portrayal of a god named yahweh aka jehovah

davidylan:

permit me but your question is very foolish. Your response to justcool's clear explanation is even worse.
If Christ had come to China, you'D ask why He wasnt sent to Africa. If Christ came to Ghana, you'D ask why He wasnt sent to the Jews. In essence, with the stupid . . . God can never win. Would it have made more sense if Christ had divided Himself into billions and sent Himself to every tribe at once?

Ok lets look at another scenario . . . millions of Nigerians living in Nigeria will NEVER see their Yar Adua face to face . . . does that mean he is president only to those who can see and talk to him?

Read justcool's post again, it made tons of sense (even just the first 5 sentences was enough) . . . read it without a closed mind which is simply waiting to entrench your flawed position.

Word!

@mazaje
Please don't take this in a bad way but my advice to you is to see a psychiatrist. First of all it is absurd that you will ask such a question considering that middle east is part of the world. Dont you know geography? Middle east is not in Jupiter, it is part of the world.
Justcool gave you a wonderfull and detailed explanation, your reply to his post is just ridiculous and completely devoid of any sense. Why do you reply his valid logic with Biblical verses when you dont believe in the Bible. This is not a good strategy for argument, seeking to validate your argument with verses that you consider false and made up.

davidylan also gave you a wonderfull analogy in his post above yet you still make noise.

A wise man knows when quietly to dismiss himself.

seeklove:

A wise man knows when quietly to dismiss himself.

Mazaje is not someone i'd consider wise. He thinks by posting tomes of incredulous mumbo jumbo he has made us see reason.

mazaje:

you are just grasping at staws in trying to make a nonsense argumet sound reasonable, for god so loved the world it says, i am using the characteritics of your so called god to explain the senario, your god claims he is almighty and all powe full and can do all things why then did he have to send himself to the middle east? if he is that all powerful and all knowing he will send himself to the whole world at once which i believe an all powerful being should be able to do.

I think the person "grasping at straws" here is indeed you. The argument "if He is God why didnt He send Himself to the whole world AT ONCE" is frankly stupid and suggestive of someone just looking for excuses where there is none. The bible is frankly clear about WHY God chose to come in thatfashion.
When i was a child i also used to wonder . . . why did Christ not just come and overthrow the Roman empire that was colonising Israel at that time?

Eventually i understood the reason, it had been in the bible all along . . . if God had come to the whole world AT ONCE as foolish pple like Mazaje like to say, it would have made nonsense of the NEED for "he that believeth . . ." because everyone would have had no choice but to believe.
Salvation is not by force, it is a matter of choice and faith . . . faith that what Christ has promised He is able to perform . . . that was why He chose to come in the form of a lowly child in a manger.

mazaje:

in Genesis, Jacob successfully alters the color patterns on lambs and goats so that he could differentiate the stronger ones from the weaker ones. He purportedly accomplished this feat by placing peeled tree branches in front of the mating livestock (Genesis 30:37-39). Following his absurd achievement, an angel of God visits him in a dream and praises him for his work in genetics (Genesis 31:11-12). As someone with a thorough background in human physiology, I hold the opinion that this is easily the single most embarrassing error contained between the Bible’s covers. Peeled branches have absolutely no effect on an organism’s appearance; DNA does. As an extremely quick summary of the topic, the general rule is that half of an offspring’s DNA comes from each parent with the more dominant type being physically expressed. The specific genes in the DNA sequence are the determining factor for the animals’ colors. Of course, such advanced understanding was way beyond the scope of the ancient Hebrew. Divine inspiration obviously doesn’t resonate from this passage either.

What is more stupid about this analogy is this - Jacob never said the peeled sticks was responsible for the color pattern on the lambs. YOU DID.

mazaje:

The story of Moses relaying God’s commands to the people also drops the ball when you consider which animals the almighty deemed unclean. He says hares are not clean enough to eat because they chew their cud (Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7). I’m not sure where he gets this impression because it’s the exact opposite of reality. The obvious solution to this problem is that no all-knowing deity told Moses anything of the sort.

Rabbits and hares practise refection. I guess your agric teacher didnt tell you that.

Mazaje, as regards the Daniel vision, it were better you didnt even respond because you were caught in a very BLATANT LIE. What a shame.

A lot of mumbo jumbo has gone on already.

@Poster,

What on earth is not clear in that passage. Some people just love raising dust.

Missy & Davidylan, would have said u guys get tym, but on a second thought it's good you responded. We never can tell when/where God will choose to enlighten some people. Keep it up!!!

thanks sister at least u understand y i put up a topic like this

tonye-t:

thanks sister at least u understand y i put up a topic like this

If that is the case, then i retract. Anyway, you must also understand why i have that kind of attitude. Thia is a public forun, hence allows all manner of things. Next time, you could look for a better way to phrase it so that we can truly learn.

davidylan:

Mazaje, as regards the Daniel vision, it were better you didnt even respond because you were caught in a very BLATANT LIE. What a shame.

you keep on underscoring the meaning/interpretation of the vision, i clearly stated that it was a vision didnt I? and that is the premise of my assertion, keep on grabing at straws, thats what most of you do when you are caught believeing that book of fables. out of all what i wrote and posted all you can challange are those that you feel you can explain away. jesus said that a day will come when stars will fall, that is a lie, stars do not and cannot fall simple. what have you got to say about the myth of the tower of bable , the plagarised story of the noah's ark or the assertion that blindness , leprosy and seizures are all spirits? Christains always say thatThe Bible is the word of God. Since God/people inspired by God wrote the Bible, we know that it contains only truthful accounts(which it does'nt). Since the truthful accounts are inspired by God, we know that the Bible is God’s word.” In other words, the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. If you can’t spot the enormous gaping hole in this argument, I’m afraid that I’m not doing you much help. The Qur’an says Muhammad is Allah’s prophet, but that doesn’t make it a fact. There must be good evidence to support these claims. The bible is purely the word/tradition of men simple and has no divine inspiration if not how can the following natural human charactersitics be despised by a God that created people in his own image?

let me give you an example as we all know menstruation is a natural occurrence in the lives of most women. However, the God of the Pentateuch despises this biologically necessary bodily process and gives instructions on how to deal with these treacherous circumstances. During menstruation, God deems the woman unclean. No one shall have any contact with her for seven days or until the bleeding stops. God deems anyone or anything she touches unclean. If she touches another person, God deems that person unclean until he bathes. In fact, the same goes for anyone who touches something that she previously touched (Leviticus 15:19-30). All this uncleanliness is resolved by needlessly killing two doves. Admittedly, there are similar laws for male ejaculation, but men can actually suppress these events to some extent.

Childbirth is another natural event that God deems foul. If a woman gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days while she undergoes the same ritual for her menstrual period. She must then be purified for thirty-three days and barred from entering worship during this time. If she produces a girl, the sentence of solitary confinement is doubled to fourteen and sixty-six days, respectively (Leviticus 12:1-5). In addition to God unfairly designating women as filthy individuals following childbirth, this passage heavily insinuates that girls are dirtier than boys because it punishes a woman more harshly for giving birth to a female child. Is this the word of a god or the word of 1st century normads that have no respect for women at that time?

the bible says that god created adam and eve in his own image but why is it that he dislike women so much in the old testament? here are some examples One other mistreatment by omission should come to mind upon completion of reading the Pentateuch: the failure to mention the explicit impermissibility of sexual relations between fathers and daughters. The only such instance that comes to mind is the record of Lot’s daughters getting him drunk to become pregnant by him (Genesis 19:30-38). However, the author tells the story using disturbingly tranquil commentary. Had God considered this a reprehensible act, one would assume that it would be noted in some way for its distastefulness. In fact, Moses provides a long list of people with whom we are not to have sexual contact in Leviticus 20:10-21, but noticeably absent from this list is the debauchery of a father with his daughter. We also know from previous analyses that daughters are the sole property of their fathers. Finally, we can safely assume that these father-daughter relationships existed thousands of years ago, as they secretly do now. The omission of this regulation can only lead to the conclusion that it was permissible, or at least somewhat condonable, for a father to rape his daughters.

The books of prophecy, Isaiah through Malachi, have the most vivid images of God tormenting women. Some examples of God’s actions not previously covered include the giving away of people’s wives (Jeremiah 8:10), justifying a woman being raped (Jeremiah 13:22), making men “become as women” (Jeremiah 50:37), denouncing menstruation (Ezekiel 18:6), telling Hosea to acquire a wife that he knew would be purchased (Hosea 3:1-2), aborting children in their mothers’ wombs (Hosea 9:11-12 and 13:16), ridiculing an army by labeling them women (Nahum 3:13), and taking part in a war concluding with women being raped (Zechariah 11:4). Again, I don’t feel there’s any reason to worry over such matters because none of this will ever happen due to direct intervention by the fictitious version of God depicted in the Old Testament.

The historical books, Joshua through Esther, begin the popular trend of multiple-wife lifestyles. Among those who have several wives and/or concubines are Gideon, Elkanah, David, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Solomon, who I believe is the winner with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Even so, divinely inspired biblical authors wholeheartedly claim that God looks upon these men favorably. Would we expect God to view these individuals in a positive light if this lifestyle was displeasing to the almighty?

We find several more cruelties perpetrated against women in these historical books. Such atrocities include a woman given away as a prize (Judges 1:12-13); a woman offered as a sacrifice (Judges 11:29-39); married daughters given to other people (Judges 15:2); rape, murder, and mutilation by a mob; (Judges 19:22-30); abduction of virgins (Judges 21:7-23); purchasing of wives (Ruth 4:10 and 1 Samuel 18:25-27); and God punishing David by allowing his son to sleep with his wives and concubines, an act for which the women were later imprisoned (2 Samuel 12:11-12, 16:22, 20:3). This are the words of men who later saw that the image they created of that evil and spiteful god will not be accepted world wide because people were better educated and exposed, they then came up with a new god which they created in their own image and called him jesus. they came up with better and more humane laws etc in the new testament.

davidylan:

Mazaje is not someone i'D consider wise. He thinks by posting tomes of incredulous mumbo jumbo he has made us see reason.

I think the person "grasping at straws" here is indeed you. The argument "if He is God why didnt He send Himself to the whole world AT ONCE" is frankly stupid and suggestive of someone just looking for excuses where there is none. The bible is frankly clear about WHY God chose to come in thatfashion.
When i was a child i also used to wonder . . . why did Christ not just come and overthrow the Roman empire that was colonising Israel at that time?

Eventually i understood the reason, it had been in the bible all along . . . if God had come to the whole world AT ONCE as foolish people like Mazaje like to say, it would have made nonsense of the NEED for "he that believeth . . ." because everyone would have had no choice but to believe.
Salvation is not by force, it is a matter of choice and faith . . . faith that what Christ has promised He is able to perform . . . that was why He chose to come in the form of a lowly child in a manger. 

The only mumbo jumbo is the tower of babel story, the noah's ark plagarised myth and all the wild and unjustified killings that were carried out by the hebrew god and his footsoldiers in the bible. That is what we call mumbo jumbo not what i outlined.

So now its all about he that believeth ok nice but the same bible says go and make diciples of all nations, why are you now talking about he that believeth and espousing the idea that salvation is not by force? if salvation is not by force when then did the hebrew god commanded his people to kill so many just because they were'nt worshipping him in the bible? salvation is not by force but killing people by force simple because they do not believe or worship the hebrew god is ok according to the bible(old testament) ko? na you sabi sha. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

mazaje:

you keep on underscoring the meaning/interpretation of the vision, i clearly stated that it was a vision didnt I?

though hypocrite, you claimed it was a vision and then promptly went ahead to berate Daniel for making scientifically innacurate statements like a goat bringing down the stars. You forgot that was all part of the vision not meant to be taken literarily?

davidylan:

though hypocrite, you claimed it was a vision and then promptly went ahead to berate Daniel for making scientifically innacurate statements like a goat bringing down the stars. You forgot that was all part of the vision not meant to be taken literarily?

I don't intend to explain anything to you you clearly did not understand my whole post.  but why are you hell bent on talking about the daniels vision why not talk about the fact that jesus said that stars will fall from the sky/heaven? i am berating the people that wrote the tower of bable myth, and the plagerized noah ark and the writers of all this evil and hate that is in the bible like Instead of directly murdering people or using his followers to execute similar commands, the apparently insatiable God( that has killed so many people for no good reason) begins sending animals to kill those who displease him. On one occasion, he has a lion kill a man because he refuses to hit someone (1 Kings 20:35). God sends his lions out again to kill a group of people who were new to Samaria. The reason for this atrocity is their lack of worship, even though they were never informed of the proper worship methods (2 Kings 17:24-26). However, this supposedly insignificant detail didn’t halt God from killing them. He had to have known that he would eventually murder this party, but instead of properly instructing them, God just kills them. There’s not even a miniscule resemblance of justice in the Hebrew god.

In an exploit of inconceivable irrationality, God sends forth two bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). Why would the omnibenevolent God feel the necessity to have two bears viciously maul little children for acting like…children? This is supposed to be the same “wonderful” and “loving” God who promises us eternal life, but an entity capable of these inane activities could certainly change his mind and banish all of his worshippers to Hell. Christians never have to justify such passages because, of course, they never read them!

mazaje:

I don't intend to explain anything to you you clearly did not understand my whole post. but why are you hell bent on talking about the daniels vision why not talk about the fact that jesus said that stars will fall from the sky/heaven?

Because in that singular instant, you confirmed the fact that you were a liar whose words are not to be trusted. I reproduce your post on daniel's vision again.

Daniel speaks of a vision he recieved from god concerning a giant goat’s horn knocking the stars from the sky down to the ground where the goat “stamped upon them”(stars) (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we can also be decidedly certain that Daniel believed stars were tiny lights hanging above the earth.

- We cannot be "decidedly certain" because Daniel made it clear from the begining he was describing a vision not reality.

(science has explained and proved that daniel's position and assertion are false) Otherwise, how could his monstrous goat stamp upon them?

- Because Daniel's goat was not a real goat neither was he positing that he could stamp on stars in real life. It was a vision stupid.

(if you understand the study of the universe and stars you will know that a star is like a sun and the center of a whole solar system which is much more bigger than the earth) More importantly, how could someone divinely inspired write something so blatantly preposterous?

- Daniel knew that, that was why he FIRST told you that he saw it in a VISION.

With all these lies, its not hard to figure out why you're largely ignored.

davidylan:

Because in that singular instant, you confirmed the fact that you were a liar whose words are not to be trusted. I reproduce your post on daniel's vision again.

Daniel speaks of a vision he recieved from god concerning a giant goat’s horn knocking the stars from the sky down to the ground where the goat “stamped upon them”(stars) (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we can also be decidedly certain that Daniel believed stars were tiny lights hanging above the earth.

- We cannot be "decidedly certain" because Daniel made it clear from the begining he was describing a vision not reality.

(science has explained and proved that daniel's position and assertion are false) Otherwise, how could his monstrous goat stamp upon them?

- Because Daniel's goat was not a real goat neither was he positing that he could stamp on stars in real life. It was a vision stupid.

(if you understand the study of the universe and stars you will know that a star is like a sun and the center of a whole solar system which is much more bigger than the earth) More importantly, how could someone divinely inspired write something so blatantly preposterous?

- Daniel knew that, that was why he FIRST told you that he saw it in a VISION.

With all these lies, its not hard to figure out why you're largely ignored.

Lies? ohh because you tried in explaing one of so many things i wrote you claim that i have been largley ignored. ohhh nice one keep on deluding your self and finding excuse to run away from false hood and lies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . anyway that what all you bible apologist are good at cutting and running, in the other thread instead of tacking the topic head on you resulted to calling us hypocrites and advissing that we equally go against the moslems, what have moslems got to do with the evil acts of the hebrew god? na you sabi sha . . . . . . . .

here are some false assertions in the bible regarding animals, In the beginning, when God allegedly created the animals, they were designed to consume plants rather than meat (Genesis 1:30). Even so, there’s certainly no reason to believe that the ancestors of present-day predators survived off an herbivore diet. The food chain is in harmony because of the fluctuations occurring due to a rising and falling cycle of predator and prey populations. Withdrawing that relationship would throw the chain into unknown chaos. Furthermore, we have fossil records of these animals purported to be herbivores. Their equipped teeth were intended to initiate and facilitate the digestion of meat, not plants. Six thousand years ago, just like today, many species could not survive solely on plants. In addition, parasites require blood from living hosts. Blood is neither a plant nor a meat. Suggesting that parasites also made their daily meals from plants is increasingly absurd. Science demonstrates that it’s impossible for some species to survive on plants, yet the erroneous Bible claims this testable statement isn’t true. Do Christians expect everyone to believe that the Bible is correct regardless of what it says?

The prophet Isaiah informs us that a cockatrice, a mythical creature able to kill its victim with a casual glance, will arise from a serpent (Isaiah 14:29). What tangible evidence do we have to believe that a creature with this incredible ability has ever existed? Again, the Bible provides stories that sound like something straight out of a fairy tale. While some animals are certainly capable of killing their prey by biting or strangling them, a look has no anticipated scientific capacity to kill another creature. While there may be some type of alternative mechanism of action for the attack, such as venom sprayed through the eyes, it wouldn’t be due to the act of looking. The cockatrice, unicorn, and dragon are examples of mythical creatures in the Bible that fail to leave any reliable evidence for their existence.

In John’s Revelation dream, which is conveyed to be an imminent and realistic future event, he sees crown-wearing locusts with faces of men, hair of women, teeth of lions, tails of scorpions, and wings sounding like chariots. These locusts also adorn iron breastplates in preparation for battle (9:7-10). Draw your own conclusions.