₦airaland Forum

FxMasterz:
People write histories relating to things that pertain to themselves. Not things pertaining to others. Israel has written her own history which forms part of the old testament. You rejected their history and come out to say, the histories were not written.

In most cases, people don't write down the bad parts of their histories. If the Egyptians didn't write about Pharaoh's demise in the red Sea, it would be solely because of the bad image it gives them and their gods. However, Egypt has never denied the red Sea event. There are Christians and proselytes of Judaism among the Egyptians too. This incident has never once been faulted. The destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the red Sea is a very bold statement to make at the time it was made. If it never happened, Moses wouldn't dare because at that time, Egypt was a world power. You can't lightly make a false claim against another nation without anticipating that they'll refute your claim. That alone is enough to deter. Why would Moses lie against Egypt?

Regarding the sun standing still. That was an experience Joshua had with his armies. We can't tell whether the phenomenon spread to other places as well. Scientifically speaking, it should. But then, the people would only observe the phenomenon without knowing why or how it happened. Only Joshua and his people did. So, that can't be part of anybody's history.

Lol. Theists can claim the incredible to further their narrative.
1. Israeli history doesn't mention anything about parting of the Red Sea, sun or moon standing still. In fact, archeologists or historians , both of Egyptian or Israeli origin, have known they were all fables.
Read this from LA Times. This is from an Israeli rabbi and backed by history



On Passover last Sunday, Rabbi David Wolpe raised that provocative question before 2,200 faithful at Sinai Temple in Westwood. He minced no words.

“The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all,” Wolpe told his congregants.

Wolpe’s startling sermon may have seemed blasphemy to some. In fact, however, the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade. Slowly and often outside wide public purview, archeologists are radically reshaping modern understanding of the Bible. It was time for his people to know about it, Wolpe decided.

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua’s fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

“Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we’ve broken the news very gently,” said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America’s preeminent archeologists.


Dever’s view is emblematic of a fundamental shift in archeology. Three decades ago as a Christian seminary student, he wrote a paper defending the Exodus and got an A, but “no one would do that today,” he says. The old emphasis on trying to prove the Bible--often in excavations by amateur archeologists funded by religious groups--has given way to more objective professionals aiming to piece together the reality of ancient lifestyles.

But the modern archeological consensus over the Exodus is just beginning to reach the public. In 1999, an Israeli archeologist, Ze’ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University, set off a furor in Israel by writing in a popular magazine that stories of the patriarchs were myths and that neither the Exodus nor Joshua’s conquests ever occurred. In the hottest controversy today, Herzog also argued that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, described as grand and glorious in the Bible, was at best a small tribal kingdom.

In a new book this year, “The Bible Unearthed,” Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC--600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC--as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory.


Dever argued that the Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.

Some scholars, of course, still maintain that the Exodus story is basically factual.

Bryant Wood, director of the Associates for Biblical Research in Maryland, argued that the evidence falls into place if the story is dated back to 1450 BC. He said that indications of destruction around that time at Hazor, Jericho and a site he is excavating that he believes is the biblical city of Ai support accounts of Joshua’s conquests.

He also cited the documented presence of “Asiatic” slaves in Egypt who could have been Israelites, and said they would not have left evidence of their wanderings because they were nomads with no material culture. But Wood said he can’t get his research published in serious archeological journals.

“There’s a definite anti-Bible bias,” Wood said.

The revisionist view, however, is not necessarily publicly popular.

Herzog, Finklestein and others have been attacked for everything from faulty logic to pro-Palestinian political agendas that undermine Israel’s land claims. Dever, a former Protestant minister who converted to Judaism 12 years ago, says he gets “hissed and booed” when he speaks about the lack of evidence for the Exodus, and regularly receives letters and calls offering prayers or telling him he’s headed for hell.

At Sinai Temple, Sunday’s sermon--and a follow-up discussion at Monday’s service--provoked tremendous, and varied, response. Many praised Wolpe for his courage and vision. “It was the best sermon possible, because it is preparing the young generation to understand all the truth about religion,” said Eddia Mirharooni, a Beverly Hills fashion designer.

A few said they were hurt--”I didn’t want to hear this,” one woman said--or even a bit angry. Others said the sermon did nothing to shake their faith that the Exodus story is true.

“Science can always be proven wrong,” said Kalanit Benji, a UCLA undergraduate in psychobiology.

Added Aman Massi, a 60-year-old Los Angeles businessman: “For sure it was true, 100%. If it were not true, how could we follow it for 3,300 years?”

But most congregants, along with secular Jews and several rabbis interviewed, said that whether the Exodus is historically true or not is almost beside the point. The power of the sweeping epic lies in its profound and timeless message about freedom, they say.

The story of liberation from bondage into a promised land has inspired the haunting spirituals of African American slaves, the emancipation and civil rights movements, Latin America’s liberation theology, peasant revolts in Germany, nationalist struggles in South Africa, the American Revolution, even Leninist politics, according to Michael Walzer in the book “Exodus and Revolution.”
Many of Wolpe’s congregants said the story of the Exodus has been personally true for them even if the details are not factual: when they fled the Nazis during World War II, for instance, or, more recently, the Islamic revolution in Iran. Daniel Navid Rastein, an Encino medical professional, said he has always regarded the story as a metaphor for a greater truth: “We all have our own Egypts--we are prisoners of something, either alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, overeating. We have to use [the story] as a way to free ourselves from difficulty and make ourselves a better person.”

Wolpe, Sinai Temple’s senior rabbi, said he decided to deliver the sermon to lead his congregation into a deeper understanding of their faith. On Sunday, he told his flock that questioning the Jewish people’s founding story could be justified for one reason alone: to honor the ancient rabbinical declaration that “You do not serve God if you do not seek truth.”
“I think faith ought not rest on splitting seas,” Wolpe said in an interview. “For a Jew, it should rest on the wonder of God’s world, the marvel of the human soul and the miracle of this small people’s survival through the millennia.”
Next year, the rabbi plans to teach a course on the Bible that he says will “pull no punches” in presenting the latest scholarship questioning the text’s historical basis.

But he and others say that Judaism has also traditionally been more open to nonliteral interpretations of the text than, say, some conservative Christian traditions.

“Among Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Jews, there is a much greater willingness to see the Torah as an extended metaphor in which truth comes through story and law,” said Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.
Among scholars, the case against the Exodus began crystallizing about 13 years ago. That’s when Finklestein, director of Tel Aviv University’s archeology institute, published the first English-language book detailing the results of intensive archeological surveys of what is believed to be the first Israelite settlements in the hilly regions of the West Bank.

The surveys, conducted during the 1970s and 1980s while Israel possessed what are now Palestinian territories, documented a lack of evidence for Joshua’s conquests in the 13th century BC and the indistinguishable nature of pottery, architecture, literary conventions and other cultural details between the Canaanites and the new settlers.

If there was no conquest, no evidence of a massive new settlement of an ethnically distinct people, scholars argue, then the case for a literal reading of Exodus all but collapses. The surveys’ final results were published three years ago.

The settlement research marked the turning point in archeological consensus on the issue, Dever said. It added to previous research that showed that Egypt’s voluminous ancient records contained not one mention of Israelites in the country, although one 1210 BC inscription did mention them in Canaan.

Kadesh Barnea in the east Sinai desert, where the Bible says the fleeing Israelites sojourned, was excavated twice in the 1950s and 1960s and produced no sign of settlement until three centuries after the Exodus was supposed to have occurred. The famous city of Jericho has been excavated several times and was found to have been abandoned during the 13th and 14th centuries BC.

Moreover, specialists in the Hebrew Bible say that the Exodus story is riddled with internal contradictions stemming from the fact that it was spliced together from two or three texts written at different times. One passage in Exodus, for instance, says that the bodies of the pharaoh’s charioteers were found on the shore, while the next verse says they sank to the bottom of the sea.


And some of the story’s features are mythic motifs found in other Near Eastern legends, said Ron Hendel, a professor of Hebrew Bible at UC Berkeley. Stories of babies found in baskets in the water by gods or royalty are common, he said, and half of the 10 plagues fall into a “formulaic genre of catastrophe” found in other Near Eastern texts.

Carol Meyers, a professor specializing in biblical studies and archeology at Duke University, said the ancients never intended their texts to be read literally. “People who try to find scientific explanations for the splitting of the Red Sea are missing the boat in understanding how ancient literature often mixed mythic ideas with historical recollections,” she said. “That wasn’t considered lying or deceit; it was a way to get ideas across.”

Virtually no scholar, for instance, accepts the biblical figure of 600,000 men fleeing Egypt, which would have meant there were a few million people, including women and children. The ancient desert at the time could not support so many nomads, scholars say, and the powerful Egyptian state kept tight security over the area, guarded by fortresses along the way.

Even Orthodox Jewish scholar Lawrence Schiffman said “you’d have to be a bit crazy” to accept that figure. He believes that the account in Joshua of a swift military campaign is less accurate than the Judges account of a gradual takeover of Canaan. But Schiffman, chairman of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, still maintains that a significant number of Israelite slaves fled Egypt for Canaan.

“I’m not arguing that archeology proves the Exodus,” he said. “I’m arguing that archeology allows you, in ambiguity, to reach whatever conclusion you want to.”

Wood argued that the 600,000 figure was mistranslated and the real number amounted to a more plausible 20,000. He also said the early Israelite settlements and their similarity to Canaanite culture could be explained as the result of pastoralists with no material culture moving into a settled farming life and absorbing their neighbors’ pottery styles and other cultural forms.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-13-mn-50481-story.html

I can pull up more evidence if you want.
But you can still decide to be angry(like some Judaists there) that the story you hold so dear has holes in them, or decide to face the truth head-on, and jump into that rabbit hole

2.
Regarding the sun standing still. That was an experience Joshua had with his armies. We can't tell whether the phenomenon spread to other places as well. Scientifically speaking, it should. But then, the people would only observe the phenomenon without knowing why or how it happened
So you're saying other people elsewhere observed the sun standing still and didn't know what the sun or moon was? I don't understand.
Or you mean, they observed it and didn't know what they were observing.
If the later, that is the more reason they should have recorded such a puzzling event, something that hasn't happened before. Don't you think?

FxMasterz:
Some places are called by different names in different languages, okay?

A story about an event that happened with its location found with archeological artifacts confirming the story is called a myth, isn't it? Clap for yourself.

Do you know there are locations around the world destroyed with meteorites or something similar? Why didn’t you claim it was Yahweh's work?

FxMasterz:
The Tunguska event was as a result of meteorites but who told you that meteorites could not be used as an instrument of Judgement by the One who created it?

Now, I do not infer that the Tunguska event is God's judgement but what if it is?

Sodom and Gomorrah event was debited by you lots saying it's an unbelievable myth. The moment the location was discovered, you start claiming natural events. [/b]And who actually told you that God doesn't use natural disasters to punish people?

[b]We know that the Sodom and Gomorrah event was from God's judgement because Abraham was foretold about the event. He prayed earnestly for the sparing of his Nephew, Lot who was living in Sodom at the time. The aftermath of that event produced two nations - Moab and Ammon. Moses never once visited the site. The Sodom and Gomorrah story was never a part of Egyptian mythology or history. Since Moses studied in Egypt, we could infer that he copied the story from Egypt but this couldn't have been the case. Moses could only have known about the event by divine revelation.

Where is your evidence of this Sodom and Gomorrah? You seem to have a problem with providing its existence.
You said we know Sodom and Gomorrah destruction was Yahweh judgment. Who is the who you're talking about? Because its written in your buybull? Was the destruction event captured by any history book? No.

FxMasterz:
You're still trying all you could do to deny the truth because it hurts. A honest guy would have said 'Have I not been holding to a lie all this while?' But, not you.

What truth?
This thread is on its 3rd or 4th page but you cannot provide evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah. Or evidence that this city was destroyed by fire, and not a meteorite.
You keep dancing all over the place

24 Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, with walls on both sides.
25 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it pressed close to the wall, crushing balaam’s foot against it. So he beat the donkey again.

26 Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29 balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30 The donkey said to balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.

31 Then the Lord opened balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

32 The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.[a] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”

34 balaam said to the angel of the Lord, “I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back.”

35 The angel of the Lord said to balaam, “Go with the men, but speak only what I tell you.” So balaam went with Balak’s officials.

36 When Balak heard that balaam was coming, he went out to meet him at the Moabite town on the Arnon border, at the edge of his territory. 37 Balak said to balaam, “Did I not send you an urgent summons? Why didn’t you come to me? Am I really not able to reward you?”

38 “Well, I have come to you now,” balaam replied. “But I can’t say whatever I please. I must speak only what God puts in my mouth.”

39 Then balaam went with Balak to Kiriath Huzoth. 40 Balak sacrificed cattle and sheep, and gave some to balaam and the officials who were with him. 41 The next morning Balak took balaam up to Bamoth Baal, and from there he could see the outskirts of the Israelite camp.

Now, reading the above passage as a fresher should have one scratching his head.
1. An omniscient god was asking a mortal he created who the other mortals are. As an omniscient god, he would have told balaam that some officials would visit him in some days, and told him what he would tell them as reply.
2. Not only that, he originally told balaam not to go with them, but changed his mind and told him to go with them when they sent more goodies grin
3. Now when balaam obeyed him and went with them, he sent an angel to kill him, even though poor balaam was adhering to him instructions cheesy
4. After threatening balaam that he would have killed him if not for the donkey, he still went ahead to tell him to continue on the journey
5. I don't want to talk about the talking donkey ( that's some hardcore Shrek moves cheesy ) that's for another day.

Go through this passage…

FxMasterz:
The story of Balaam and Balak concerned not only the nation of Israel but at least two other nations including Midian and Moab.

Balaak was a Moabite king. Balaam on the other hand was a Midianitish prophet. Which of these nations ever denied the story for all the thousands of years it has existed?

The book of Numbers where the story was told were read by Intelligent people who lived at the time of those events. You who lived thousands of years later is now funding fault. Are you saying those people who were alive at the time of those events are dumb? .

Or, do you think Moses would include such an event in recording the journeys of the Israelites if it didn't happen? Of what value would such lie be to Moses? In what way would be has benefited? The story would quickly put Moses in bad lights before his millions of followers if that event was not the truth. Don't you think so?

Moses didn’t even exist. He's part of the myth. So just put it away.
So you read Numbers 22 and it made perfect sense to you, right?
Now I'm gonna send the story and you'll read it slowly(and I mean slowly) and digest it. I'll highlight some parts in the story ,just in case you(like some theists don't understand the grammar)

Numbers 22

1 Then the Israelites traveled to the plains of Moab and camped along the Jordan across from Jericho.

2 Now Balak son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites, 3 and Moab was terrified because there were so many people. Indeed, Moab was filled with dread because of the Israelites.

4 The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, “This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.”

So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, 5 sent messengers to summon balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the Euphrates River, in his native land. Balak said:

“A people has come out of Egypt; they cover the face of the land and have settled next to me. 6 Now come and put a curse on these people, because they are too powerful for me. Perhaps then I will be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land. For I know that whoever you bless is blessed, and whoever you curse is cursed.”

7 The elders of Moab and Midian left, taking with them the fee for divination. When they came to balaam, they told him what Balak had said.

8 “Spend the night here,” balaam said to them, “and I will report back to you with the answer the Lord gives me.” So the Moabite officials stayed with him.

9 God came to balaam and asked, “Who are these men with you?”

10 balaam said to God, “Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab, sent me this message: 11 ‘A people that has come out of Egypt covers the face of the land. Now come and put a curse on them for me. Perhaps then I will be able to fight them and drive them away.’”

12 But God said to balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed.”

13 The next morning balaam got up and said to Balak’s officials, “Go back to your own country, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.”

14 So the Moabite officials returned to Balak and said, “balaam refused to come with us.”

15 Then Balak sent other officials, more numerous and more distinguished than the first. 16 They came to balaam and said:

“This is what Balak son of Zippor says: Do not let anything keep you from coming to me, 17 because I will reward you handsomely and do whatever you say. Come and put a curse on these people for me.”

18 But balaam answered them, “Even if Balak gave me all the silver and gold in his palace, I could not do anything great or small to go beyond the command of the Lord my God. 19 Now spend the night here so that I can find out what else the Lord will tell me.”

20 That night God came to balaam and said, “Since these men have come to summon you, go with them, but do only what I tell you.”

balaam’s Donkey
21 balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials. 22 But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the Lord stood in the road to oppose him.
balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, it turned off the road into a field. balaam beat it to get it back on the road.

To be continued…

FxMasterz:
Nyths are myths and stories are stories.

The Bible does not concern itself with myths. All biblical events were either history written after they happened or histories written before they happened which we call prophecy. We have nothing to do with myths.

So how come biblical events like sun standing still, red sea parting, many deads resurrecting weren't captured in mainstream or regular historical texts?

Johncuppa:
KJV:He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12
KJV:For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13
KJV:Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14
KJV:And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15
KJV:For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

In English, sire

Obviously this is a kush engulfed room. And I don't do kush. So I guess I have to walk. Bye

Lawag3:
You can stop tagging me now I have seen enough.

I warned you. You think I'm joking or lying. Too late now

Steep:
By the way, Adam was not tempted but rather it was eve that was tempted.

Where did you get, that God paid Satan to tempt man?

God already gave Adam and eve authority on earth, so it is Adam and eve's duty to resist the devil but they didn't.

Adam chosed to listen to the voice of eve than God.

God will not take away your responsibility just because you would in the future make a bad choice.

By the way Satan is not omniscient, he is just a creature and could be very much defeated only if Adam stick to what God told him.

The odds where never stacked against Adam.
He was created in a perfect environment
He had the voice of God speaking to him directly.
Was given authority and dominion on earth, every thing on earth literally submit to him
Was given instruction about things so he knew what to do or what not to do.
The odds were stacked in his favour but threw all that away just perhaps to please his wife.

1. Adam was tempted through Eve. I guess you didn't read that part of your fairy tale
2. Where did you get, that God paid Satan to tempt man?
It was an analogy. Remember Yahweh created Satan andgave him powers, almost all his powers(omnipresent, omniscient etc) . Also remember Satan runs all his acts by Yahweh, who gives him the thumbs up. Remember the story of Job. Besides Yahweh is omniscient, and knows Satan would succeed in conning Adam.
Thus I used the analogy of a man paying a bully to assault his son, since Yahweh gave Satan the power to deceive Adam.
Savvy?
3. God already gave Adam and eve authority on earth, so it is Adam and eve's duty to resist the devil but they didn't.

Which authority? Remember Satan has the power to appear in any form or shape(thus appearing as a snake), heard what Yahweh told Adam(thus is omnipresent) etc
Exactly what powers does Adam have? He can't disappear, can't be omnipresent
4. Adam chosed to listen to the voice of eve than God.
Who created Eve? Yahweh!
Who knows Eve would deceive Adam but went ahead with her creation? Yahweh!
Do you see your god's complicity in this crime?
5. God will not take away your responsibility just because you would in the future make a bad choice.
Good. So why doesn't he at least equip you properly to face the responsibility or task? Just like leaving someone that can't swim out in the middle of an ocean
6. By the way Satan is not omniscient, he is just a creature and could be very much defeated only if Adam stick to what God told him
Typical theist. You don't even know your Bible. Definition of omniscient is all-knowing. If Satan isn't all-knowing, how come he knows what Yahweh told Adam? He knows where Adam was? He knows Job? And according to ya'll, he knows everyone's sins and uses it against them. He knows what you know. Hell, he knows where Yahweh hangs out
(Job 1:6-7 [6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
[7] And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.)
Tell me, does any mortal here know the exact spot yahweh chills in the heavens? No!
So that nigga has way more powers than you think
7. The odds where never stacked against Adam.
He was created in a perfect environment
He had the voice of God speaking to him directly.
Oh yes, it was. Nigga never knew what hit him. Yahweh was regularly chatting with Satan way before he started talking to Adam. In fact, they talk on buddy terms, just like the Job incident. So that's not a criterion for any power
8.

Steep:
By the way, Adam was not tempted but rather it was eve that was tempted.

Where did you get, that God paid Satan to tempt man?

God already gave Adam and eve authority on earth, so it is Adam and eve's duty to resist the devil but they didn't.

Adam chosed to listen to the voice of eve than God.

God will not take away your responsibility just because you would in the future make a bad choice.

By the way Satan is not omniscient, he is just a creature and could be very much defeated only if Adam stick to what God told him.

The odds where never stacked against Adam.
He was created in a perfect environment
He had the voice of God speaking to him directly.
Was given authority and dominion on earth, every thing on earth literally submit to him
Was given instruction about things so he knew what to do or what not to do.
The odds were stacked in his favour but threw all that away just perhaps to please his wife.

1. Adam was tempted through Eve. I guess you didn't read that part of your fairy tale
2. Where did you get, that God paid Satan to tempt man?
It was an analogy. Remember Yahweh created Satan andgave him powers, almost all his powers(omnipresent, omniscient etc) . Also remember Satan runs all his acts by Yahweh, who gives him the thumbs up. Remember the story of Job. Besides Yahweh is omniscient, and knows Satan would succeed in conning Adam.
Thus I used the analogy of a man paying a bully to assault his son, since Yahweh gave Satan the power to deceive Adam.
Savvy?
3. God already gave Adam and eve authority on earth, so it is Adam and eve's duty to resist the devil but they didn't.

Which authority? Remember Satan has the power to appear in any form or shape(thus appearing as a snake), heard what Yahweh told Adam(thus is omnipresent) etc
Exactly what powers does Adam have? He can't disappear, can't be omnipresent
4. Adam chosed to listen to the voice of eve than God.
Who created Eve? Yahweh!
Who knows Eve would deceive Adam but went ahead with her creation? Yahweh!
Do you see your god's complicity in this crime?
5. God will not take away your responsibility just because you would in the future make a bad choice.
Good. So why doesn't he at least equip you properly to face the responsibility or task? Just like leaving someone that can't swim out in the middle of an ocean
6. By the way Satan is not omniscient, he is just a creature and could be very much defeated only if Adam stick to what God told him
Typical theist. You don't even know your Bible. Definition of omniscient is all-knowing. If Satan isn't all-knowing, how come he knows what Yahweh told Adam? He knows where Adam was? He knows Job? And according to ya'll, he knows everyone's sins and uses it against them. He knows what you know. Hell, he knows where Yahweh hangs out
(Job 1:6-7 [6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
[7] And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.)
Tell me, does any mortal here know the exact spot yahweh chills in the heavens? No!
So that nigga has way more powers than you think
7. The odds where never stacked against Adam.
He was created in a perfect environment
He had the voice of God speaking to him directly.
Oh yes, it was. Nigga never knew what hit him. Yahweh was regularly chatting with Satan way before he started talking to Adam. In fact, they talk on buddy terms, just like the Job incident. So that's not a criterion for any power
8. Was given authority and dominion on earth, every thing on earth literally submit to him
Was given instruction about things so he knew what to do or what not to do.
Even a higher authority and power was given to Satan. Like I listed above, Yahweh made him omniscient, omnipresent etc. Poor Adam was none of them. Could Adam be invisible? No. Can he be everywhere? No.
There you go

Dtruthspeaker:
I know! But you and your children shall be barren in all things til your house disappears from the face of the earth because of barrenness. And suddenly shall destruction wipe away your house forever and ever.

Lawag3

Dtruthspeaker:
"When the stupid can not argue, he insults"

Lawag3

Dtruthspeaker:
Because many are the ways that lead to death.

Well bingo, I'm still alive and kicking

Kobojunkie:
1. It is instead a lack of comprehension that leads many to conclude that Genesis 1 vs 27 means God created man and then did it again in Genesis 2 vs 21. Rather, all the writer does in Genesis 1 vs 27 is inform the reader that just as God created the animals male and females God also created humans males and females alike. The actual creation of humans takes place in Genesis 2 where the writer then telescopes down to reveal what really took place.

You just keep on necrobumping your way

marvrick:
I can understand why so many people esp Christians develop an emotional attachment to the Bible to the extent that they can pick a fight or curse anyone that tries to show how inconsistent the Bible actually is. Or it could be because they believe it is the oldest recorded account of human history and origins, and so are scared of the consequences of disbelieving it. For some it is the closest thing that shows them where they come from and so they are unwilling to discard it since no other source has adequately shown where humans came from.

But in all honesty the Bible is a book that contains a lot of craftily woven stories that often mislead its reader. In fact I think the Bible holds the record of being the only book that is able to tell lies and the reader accepts it as truth.

Yes, you heard me right. The Bible is a master at deception and telling lies. It does this by giving two accounts of the same story. I will endeavor to list out some of these lies found in the Bible stories.

1. The creation of Man: The Bible first says God created male and female simultaneously in Genesis 1:27 and then later says male was created first before the female in Genesis 2:21-23

2. The call of Terah/Abram: The Bible says Terah(Abraham's father) left Ur for Canaan. He took along his family(Abram, Haran, Nahor, Sarai and Lot) in Genesis 11:27-32. Remember that Haran died in Ur, Terah's native land and Terah died in Haran. I ask, who was called? Abram or Terah? In Genesis 12:1-4, the Bible says it was Abram that was called to leave his father's kindred, note that Abram was in Haran not Ur when God called him.

3. In Genesis 14:13, the Bible refers to Abram as a Hebrew. Why? How can he be Hebrew when he was originally from Ur of the Chaldees?

4. In Genesis 16:16, the Bible says Abram was 86yrs old when Ishmael was born. Sarai was probably 77yrs.

5. In Genesis 17, the Bible says Abram became Abraham, was 99yrs old and too old to impregnate a female. Likewise Sarai became Sarah and she too was too old to conceive at 90yrs of age. They were both aged and sexually incapacitated. In this same chapter, Ishmael was the first to be promised 12 descendants who will be princes and they will be a great nation by God Himself. Ishmael was the first child of Abraham's to be circumsiced at age 13.

6. In Genesis 18:11-13, the Bible says both Abraham and Sarah were old and sexually incapable. Sarah herself was beyond menopause.

7. In Genesis 20:1-18, the Bible says Abimelech, king of Gerar took aged Sarah from Abraham in order to sleep with her. I ask how can a whole king of a country desire to have sex with a very aged woman of about 90yrs. Remember that Sarah herself admitted that she was no longer desirable enough for sex in Genesis17.

8. In Genesis 21, Sarah once more confirms that both she and Abraham were very old and yet became parents to Isaac. This is the same woman the Bible told us was desired by a whole king Abimelech to the extent that he took her from her husband. In this same chapter, in verse17, the Bible says the angel of God heard the cry of the lad, Ishmael whereas it was Hagar that was crying because she had no more water. Was it her cry or Ishmael's that the angel heard?

9. In Genesis 22:2, the Bible says God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. But note the words used by God. "Take Isaac, your only son whom you love". I ask, was Isaac Abraham's only son? Was Isaac the only one loved by Abraham? For me I would say Abraham wouldn't have easily agreed to sacrifice Isaac if indeed he was the only son he had. But knowing that Ishmael still lived, it was not too difficult to agree to the command. After all if Isaac died, there was still Ishmael. So it wasn't a test of faith at all.

10. In Genesis 24:1, the Bible says Abraham was very old, as he was about 136yrs old after the death of Sarah who died at age 127 yrs.

11. In Genesis 25:1, the Bible says Abraham who was already too old to have sex took another wife and she bore six more children for him. He then died at the age of 175! Can you imagine that? In Genesis 21, the Bible confirms that Abraham was too old to impregnate anyone yet here he is in Genesis 25 fathering 6 kids and living on till he died at 175yrs! If this is not a lie I wonder what is.

Though there remain lots of other instances where the Bible tells craftily woven tales, I will stop here for lack of time and will continue in a later thread. For now I just want you to go through these instances and ask yourself if the Bible has not been playing a fast one on its readers.

Dude, you just picked on Genesis alone? Have you gone through the 4 Gospels in the New Testament? That's a whole new confusion right there. Mind-boggling shit

Dtruthspeaker:
Creations do not get absolute free will. The only way to get absolute freewill is for you to have created yourself.

Ok, so Yahweh has already determined our fate, right?

AntiChristian:
Absolute free will is free will without restrictions!

Isnt that what Yahweh is supposed to give?
Anyway, what he gave wasn't freewill

Dtruthspeaker:
See the lying devil, shouting because he has been caught trousers down lying! So shall your wife and children deceive you into destruction.

Lawag3

tctrills:
Now if you know something would happen then clearly you expect it to happen. It's not possible to know something and expect another. It's possible to know something and want another outcome but not possible to know and expect another outcome.

Again, I was hoping you would show me scriptural evidence that God did everything to prevent Adam from eating the fruit. Now let's use the scriptures.
Could you highlight some of the things God did to prevent Adam from eating the fruit? I would love to hear your views.
1. Who planted the tree?
2. What was the purpose of the tree?
3. If you know something is bad for your child, would you plant such a thing in your farm?
God clearly wanted the best for man and the Coming of Christ is the best.

Lastly, I don't understand the connection you are trying to make with Psalm 24:1-2.

At least you are smarter than your theist friend. You are using some part of your brain by thinking slightly outside the box, not wholly outside. But there's a warning: keep thinking outside this box long enough, and you'll end up an atheist. Don't say you weren't warned. Quietly creep inside the safety of that box of religion

Techobeys:
The first comment I read on your post said “you could have just kept quiet” I think I understand why the person might have said that bc your starting summation about God’s expectation of Adam’s sin is not according to I’m understanding.

I’m glad you didn’t keep quiet though. We all must learn to confess the word, and in doing so, we’ll do better. If children were told to keep quiet every time they spoke, you and I would never be able to speak today.

That said, I think it’s wrong for you to say God expected Adam to see. No, that’s false. The fact that God already knew he’ll sin doesn’t mean God expected it. You need to understand this. Imagine you need to imagine it properly.

God did all he could to avoid Adam’s sin, but Adam still sinned, so the problem was Adam. God did not predetermined that Adam should sin. What Christ is was available for Adam to be, but Adam refused to obey the commandments of God, so God sent his word to come do what man couldn’t do and achieve man’s destiny.

So what happened in the beginning was treachery, it’s not God’s plan or what God desired. It was treachery of the highest order and it’s the problem of life. Plotting to be as your creator is betrayer, if you don’t know this, learn from politics.

1. Hold up!
The fact that God already knew he’ll sin doesn’t mean God expected it
What does this sentence mean? You mean Yahweh knew all how all the scenarios with Adam would play out but didn't expect him to sin?
That's just like me knowing my wife would stab me but I'm surprised she actually did stab me
2.
God did all he could to avoid Adam’s sin
Really? An immortal all powerful god got thwarted by a mere mortal he created? Lol.
By the way, yahweh aided Adam to fail the test. Planted a juicy tree right in the middle of the garden(where Adam could easily see it and admire it), gave him a beautiful sidekick who would easily succumb and whats more, created Satan and allowed him to tempt Adam via Eve. Looks like a open and shut case. Poor Adam was set up
See Techobey, leave cerebral discourses. You simply lack the mental adeptness to engage in them. Stick to crappy Youtube vlogging

Steep:
God didn't set Adam to fail, Adam was not a robot, he had freewill and was fallable, Adam's fallability means he had to depend on God and his freewill means he had to decide.
God has seen that Adam would sin but he God would through Adam's sin show his glory and righteousness and at the same time without altering man's will.
As for the creating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it was made so Adam could make decision either to remain with God or to go on his own.
The presence of Satan is to present Adam with an alternative.


Adam's failure is not the end, through Adam's failure God's Love and goodness would really be seen and appreciated.

So Yahweh was chuckling as Adam was munching on the fruit, knowing everything was going to plan. Good.
So why did yahweh regret creating man when he has already known that man would fall and be sinful?

tctrills:
Now you get it wrong. God only exposed man into a world that has it all, the God, bad and ugly.
That is how we grow.
While the devil may be stronger than us as you say, we can overcome the devil. So as a father, if my son has a challenge that I know he can ultimately overcome, I would not remove the challenge. I would allow the challenge to play it's part in helping him grow.
To understand that God knows all, you must understand that life does not end in this world. Life does not end at death. The sorrows we may face on earth is nothing compared to the promises that lies ahead.
Just because school is hard doesn't mean your parents should shield you from it.
Just look at the progress man has made. Living a protected life in a garden with all we needed, we would not have been able to advance as we have. Trials, challenges, difficulties help us grow. You think an omniscient and omnibenevolent God would not know this?

You actually choose to misunderstand me.
1. Who created this world that has it all, the good, the bad, the ugly? Yahweh.
2. Please can you explain how a human that is mortal can overcome an immortal, omniscient, omnipresent monster like the devil. A monster who bides to yahweh's biddings? Don't dodge this question please
3. Well, it looks like Yahweh was wrong. Cos man fell the test and did not ultimately overcome. Congratulations
4. How do you know there's life after death? Have you been dead and resurrected?

Bigsin:
Blaming someone else for your misfortune helps reduce depression.

Blame it on the Goose (Goose)
Gotcha feelin' loose (loose)
Blame it on the 'Tron ('Tron)
Got you in the zone (zone)
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol

Techobeys:
I do not have such time sir. I rather take a beating than having to strike down my opponent.

Translation
I don't have any proof. Only what the buybull tells me, which has no evidence

Techobeys:
Mr budda I would like not to discus with you pls. There are only two theories, it’s either you’re created by God or you evolved from animals.

It’s either you’re human or you’re animals by the evolution theories. I said I believe I’m created, you can believe you’re animals if you want and that’s fine by me. I’ll not tell you that your theories are false.

I really don’t have energy for such directionless argument. Believe whatever you like and that’s fine.

Humans can move on their own and are placed in the animal kingdom. Further, humans belong to the animal phylum known as chordates because we have a backbone.
Did you do biology at all bro? Or your own biology was the one your pastor taught you?

Steep:
God did not tempt man.
He was clear told the consequence of his disobedience.

Oh yes he did
God created
1. The Forbidden Tree
2. Satan
3. Eve
These 3 factors aided and abetted the crime.
So yes, yahweh, tempted him
Just like tying a mans hands, throwing him into a river and expecting him to live.
How?

Steep:
man made his choice from options God gave him, even if God knows before what choice man takes he however would not violate his freewill.

So lemme get this straight.
You(yahweh) sent your son(humans) to school(life) and paid a bully(Satan) to distract and beat the child, so he'll fail in school?
By the way, what choice are you talking about? Yahweh knew Adam was gonna fail but planted this forbidden tree right in the middle of the garden with luscious fruits, to distract and tempt Adam. Gave him a partner that would make the temptation very hard [/b]to pass up. Then to make matters worse, he [b]allowed Satan(an omnipresent being) to finish the job of tempting man? Then when man fails, he turns around to blame him of making the wrong choice?
Are you seeing how Yahweh stacked up the odds against poor Adam. Almost as if he wants the dude to fail
Makes sense then

Steep:
every nation has challenges that are peculiar to them however the extent is determined by how much they utilize what God gives them.

So you mean Nigeria utilized what Yahweh gave to us poorly than the UK, US or China?

Jamestaiwo:
Salvation from Sin and death

You mean if I get jesus, I won't sin and I won't die?

OLAADEGBU:
Only he can answer that but was he wrong with his diagnosis?

Yes he was.

Steep:
Origin of sin

Sin began with lucifer focus and dependent on himself rather than God.


Look at what Jesus said about Satan

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The devil knew the truth but reject it, why because he wanted to be independent from from God.

But Yahweh created Lucifer, and knew he'd deceive man, yet allowed him to go on