Posts by JosephAlward

18

Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors

by JosephAlward in

during the reign of king nebuchadnezzar (605 - 562 bc) the babylonians conquered syria and palestine: .

"and he carried away all jerusalem:....none remained, save the poorest sort of people of the land ...those carried he into captivity from jerusalem to babylon.

(ezra 2:64, and nehemiah 7:66).

JosephAlward

Re: Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors Oct 18, 2001 9:26:59 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph, this one is REALLY lame. Here's Joseph evidence:
>>The agreement between Ezra and Nehemiah about the total number of returnees is excellent evidence that the data used by Ezra and Nehemiah came from the same ultimate source<<

First, ALL the accounting of genealogies was done by Ezra, NOT Nehemiah. Nehemiah would have been referencing Ezra's documents. Ezra would have documented the Israelites in two stages. The FIRST (beginning) amount of families and things out of captivity into Jerusalem, and a LAST (final) amount of families and things into Jerusalem.

If you compare the two accounts fully, there are more differences between the two accounts than there is the same. HUGE differences in fact. There are even some families MISSING betwen the two accounts.

It is obvious that these genealogies were taken at diffent times.

Nehemiah gives us a clue as to which account record he was referencing from by his own words:

Neh 7:5
I found the genealogical record of those who had been the FIRST to return.

According to Nehemiah, he was referencing the document of the ones and things that had come back to Jerusalem FIRST.

How else can we prove that Nehemiah was referencing the earliest record of returnees from captivity BESIDES his own words???

Simple.

Money.

If Nehemiah was referencing the first coming of returnees, then there would be less money in the till at that time. As more came back, there would be an increase in money, right? Right.

NEHEMIAH's referencing the FIRST ones coming:

Neh 7:71-72
71 Some of the heads of the families gave to the treasury for the work 20,000 drachmas of gold and 2,200 minas of silver. 72 The total given by the rest of the people was 20,000 drachmas of gold, 2,000 minas of silver and 67 garments for priests.

EZRA's referencing the LAST ones coming:

Ezra 2:68-69
some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site. 69 According to their ability they gave to the treasury for this work 61,000 drachmas of gold, 5,000 minas of silver and 100 priestly garments.

Please note SUBSTATIALLY more money and stuff in the Ezra account. This was obviously the latter accounting as more stuff was aquired BY THE FAMILY HEADS donation, as they arrived.

Nehemiah references the FIRST ones

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

18

Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors

by JosephAlward in

during the reign of king nebuchadnezzar (605 - 562 bc) the babylonians conquered syria and palestine: .

"and he carried away all jerusalem:....none remained, save the poorest sort of people of the land ...those carried he into captivity from jerusalem to babylon.

(ezra 2:64, and nehemiah 7:66).

JosephAlward

During the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar (605 - 562 BC) the Babylonians conquered Syria and Palestine:

"And he carried away all Jerusalem:....none remained, save the poorest sort of people of the land ...Those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon." (2 Kings 24:14-15)

The captivity occurred in 598 BC, and many returned to Jerusalem when Cyrus captured Babylon and set them free in 538 BC. In the Old Testament books of Ezra and Nehemiah there are lists of the numbers returning in each family. Unfortunately for fundamentalists who believe there are no errors in the Bible, there are many discrepancies in these numbers; sometimes an Ezra figure is higher than the corresponding one from Nehemiah, other times the Ezra figure is lower.

Here are just three examples:
1. Arah family:

"The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five." (Ezra 2:5)
versus
"The children of Arah, six hundred fifty two " (Nehemiah 7:10).....
------

2. Azgad family:

"The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two." (Ezra 2:12)
versus
"The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and two ." (Nehemiah 7:17)
------

3. Hashum family:

"The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three." (Ezra 2:19)
versus
"The children of Hashum, three hundred twenty and eight ." (Nehemiah 7:22)
------

Apologists sometimes claim that the figures Ezra quoted were taken at a different time than Nehemiah's, however, both Ezra and Nehemiah said that the whole congregation together was 42,360. (Ezra 2:64, and Nehemiah 7:66). The agreement between Ezra and Nehemiah about the total number of returnees is excellent evidence that the data used by Ezra and Nehemiah came from the same ultimate source, and that there was only one census, not two.

The conclusions seems inescapable: the Bible is in error.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

22

Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward in

genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

the author who called the deity god said the land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] god created man..[on] the sixth day (gen 1:12-13; 27).

however, the author who called the deity lord god said no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground (gen 2:5) .

JosephAlward

In order to harmonize the apparent contradiction between the two accounts of creation, apologists commonly overlook the obvious reason that there are differences. They assume that there is one writer at work--Moses--telling one continuous story; they imagine that the first story in Genesis is the main story, while the story beginning at Genesis 2:4 is a summary. In reality, the creation story is a compilation of traditions from at least two different cultures and times; the editors of the Old Testament work never intended the stories to be taken literally. Just as a respectful child might tell two stories of a happy event from childhood--one as remembered by the grandmother, and the other--and somewhat different event as remembered by the grandfather, so as not to offend either grandparent, so did the respectful editor put two differing stories of creation in the Genesis book.

As evidence that there were two different authors at work, the readers may check their Bibles for the following data:

The author of the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) refers to the deity thirty-five times, ALWAYS as “God,” while the author of the second creation story refers to the deity nine times, ALWAYS as “LORD God.” It is almost certainly not coincidental that a second account of creation begins at the EXACT place in Genesis where the name used for the deity abruptly changes after a long stretch of thirty-five “God,” to nine of “LORD God.”

Thus we have clear and convincing evidence that the author of the first story came from a culture whose people called the deity "God," and believed that plants came before man, while the author of the second story came from a culture whose people called the deity "LORD God," and believed that plants did NOT come before man.

Objective, non-fundamentalist observers may find it amusing to see how far the die-rather-than-admit-Bible-error apologist will go in explaining why "Moses" never ONCE used "LORD God" in his string of 35 references to the deity, but then abruptly started using this name at the beginning of his "summary," and never used the "God" name again in the "summary."

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

22

Bible Error: Creation Contradiction

by JosephAlward in

genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

the author who called the deity god said the land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] god created man..[on] the sixth day (gen 1:12-13; 27).

however, the author who called the deity lord god said no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground (gen 2:5) .

JosephAlward

Genesis contradicts itself in its description of the order of creation and man and plants.

The author who called the deity God said “The land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] God created man..[on] the sixth day (Gen 1:12-13; 27).

However, the author who called the deity LORD God said “NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground” (Gen 2:5)

Thus, either the first author is wrong about the plants coming three days before man was created, or the second author is wrong about there NOT being plants because man had not yet been created. Whichever is the case, the Bible is wrong in one place, or the other.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

589

MAJOR UN/WTS NEWS- UN LETTER & 1992 Press R...

by hawkaw in

as of 6:02 pm last night i received a facsimile from paul hoeffel at the un on the wts.. he gave me 3 of the 4 things i requested in two paragraphs.. i have sent a scanned version to steve bates and someone else.. i sent it to kent and randy.

and kent and randy have posted the official united nations letter on their web sites.. here is the letter - put your cursor on the image and then right click on your mouse and hit "save image" to your computer.. .

after you look at kent's web site and you people still think this it is a fake letter, phone paul hoeffel yourself at (212) 963-8070.. hawk

JosephAlward

Exactly how easy is it to become an NGO affiliated with the UN? With more than 1,400 NGOs on the list, it cannot be that hard. It's unthinkable, to me at least, that the Governing Body would allow the Watchtower to have this affiliation, knowing the firestorm of criticism and ridicule which would surely follow once the affiliation was discovered.

Which seems more likely? The GB knew about it, or they didn't? And, if they didn't, then what practical joker signed them up?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

Forum members interested in reading my views on Christianity, God, and the Bible will find them in the thread, "Jesus Fact or Fiction....Debate Transcript," created by ISP. If anyone wishes to ask me questions based on the information contained in that post, I will be happy to respond--in THAT thread.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

This post is addressed not to Pom, but to the many dozens of readers who may be following this thread.

When I've addressed my comments to you (the forum) in the past, I've used Pom's name when I've characterized his viewpoints, and this annoys him. He wants me, for example, to say, "I disagree with YOUR interpretation on..." instead of telling you--the forum members--that "I disagree with POM'S interpretation...."

Forum readers should take my use of Pom's name as an indication that I'm speaking to THEM directly--not just to Pom, and accept this manner of speech as an implicit invitation for the members to join in on the discussion.

In the future, I will not bother to preface my posts by telling the forum readers that my posts are directed to them, rather than to a specific individual. Persons should just assume that the posts are written to the general audience.

I hope this is the last we'll have to hear on this matter.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

>>Alward wrote, "If the God described in the Bible existed, it certainly could have done anything, I agree."<<

Pom writes:

Oops. Did you let the cat of the bag here? You don't believe in God?

Funny thing how you demand all the answers and more and more answers, and even when I answer, you claim I side step. Yet when I ask a simple question to you, you BLATANTLY ignore and side step
=========
Alward responds:

Five days ago when I first came on this forum I introduced myself in a thread started by ISP; that was my very first post to this forum. You'll probably find the answers you're looking for there; I assumed you had read my post.

Pom perhaps thinks that by accusing me of employing the principal argumentive tactic of the fundamentalist, he can deflect criticism away from himself. He is essentially accusing me of hiding my beliefs, of being afraid to be up front about them, of being evasive. It should now be clear that was never my intention; the post to which I refer should prove that. If Pom insists on making personal observations about me of a negative nature, he should at least be sure he's right.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

Little Toe writes, "On a more personal note, I just hate being refered to in the third person."

But, there's no other way to REFER to you, is there? (Here I'm speaking only to you, Little Toe, so I use the word "you.") If I'm speaking to you, I call you "you," but if I'm referring to you, I use the title Little Toe. When I summarize to others what you've said, I cannot say "you said this, or you said that," can I? I say, instead, "Little Toe said this...." What I do is no different from the practice of one participant in a debate turning to the audience and summarizing his opponent's argument, "You just heard Mr. Smith say...." Mr. Smith wouldn't hate being referred to in this way, would he?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

45

Is the Path to Salvation Clear?

by JosephAlward in

inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.

that makes perfect sense, on one level.

if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.

JosephAlward

Little Toe believes that I'm affecting a condescending attitude by referring to Pom in the third person. I can understand how Little Toe might think that, but it is standard practice in internet discussion groups to do this out of respect for the (sometimes) hundreds of other readers of the posts. As I explained in another post, my messages are mainly intended for the other (sometimes hundreds of) readers in this forum; to constantly refer to Pom as "you" would tend to disconnect others psychologically from this thread. Thus, when I say "Pom believes this, or Pom believes that," I'm speaking not so much to Pom as I am to Little Toe and all the other readers. I mean no offense or condescension.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html