Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames.

Burn Thy Bible

Why the Bible is an Evil Book

The Bible, consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the writings before the coming of Jesus. The New Testament is the story of Jesus and what happened when he came and it holds the teaching of his twelve apostles who he commissioned to teach the world for him. The Bible claims in many places to have been authored by God. If the Bible is an evil book and has error in it then it is not the word of God. The expression word of God means that it is what God wrote. The Christians agree that the book is as much the word of God as it is man and how this can be is a mystery that cannot be understood. We will see that there are nicer and kinder books that are not thought to be the word of God and that Christian reverence for their holy book is just bigotry for the book is thoroughly evil.

It says a lot about Christians when they don't see the Bible saying that God commanded the Jews to stone adulterous people to death as in capital punishment, commanding Jesus to accept crucifixion and a degrading death, saying people deserve to suffer for all eternity in Hell and the Bible declaration that doubting God's word is the ultimate sin as errors. That is heartless. No truly good person pretends that these are not errors and that the Bible saying Abraham did such and such and then saying the opposite would be an error!

Top of the Document

THE HATEFUL GOD OF EXODUS

We are about to launch into an attack on the doctrinal and ethical errors of the Torah, the Law of Moses which is to be found in the first five books of the Bible. The validity of the attack disproves Judaism which is based on the Torah and also Christianity whose founders, the apostles, pronounced the Torah to be infallible and just (Romans 7:12; 1 Timothy 1:8). They said that they got this from Jesus himself (Matthew 5:17-19; 7:12). Many times the New Testament says that the Law of Moses is where it gets its validity from. You can’t have the New without the Old.

We will start with the Book of Exodus which is where the real Law begins.

Exodus 7:8-13,22; 8:3 says that God permitted the magicians of Egypt to perform miracles to show that their gods should be worshipped and were as good as the God of Moses. It says they are real miracles, if they were tricks the magicians would have been able to produce gnats (8:14). The God of the Torah asked people to kill and die for him yet he offered no evidence for his teaching when other gods could duplicate his miracles. His miracles don’t support his claims when he allowed ones that support false doctrine to be done. The God of the Torah commanded some strange things so it is no use to say that when a miracle supports reasonable teaching that it must be from God. Moreover, the gods of Egypt could have existed.

God did things the other gods failed to do. Perhaps when God was the most powerful God it proved the miracles of the others did not prove their right to be honoured as gods? But a weak God could make people have false visions that he could do mighty things. Besides, the Egyptian Gods were not thought to be all-powerful. The Egyptians would have surmised that the gods were not watching one another when the god of Israel was able to start a contest and occasionally win. Their gods were not always well organised! And when God tried to compete with the gods of Egypt and they were able to do what he did for many of the miracles it shows that God wasn’t that powerful. For example, he made the frogs appear, to do something that the other gods couldn’t do. But then they were able to do it too. If demons do miracles as Christians believe then demons did the miracles for the gods of Egypt.

In Exodus 19:13-15, we read that God commanded that anybody who touched the bottom of the mountain of Sinai when he was on it had to be stoned to death or shot. A sin that harms would be worse than that and he did not say the sins should all be punished that way. Unfair!

Exodus says that anybody who curses their parents must be put to death (21:17).

If a thief breaks in and is attacked and killed in the night there is no bloodguilt. But if it is daytime then there is (Exodus 22:2). The thief is not armed at all because then there would be no bloodguilt for killing him any time. The rules are said to be based on it being easier to fight him during the day without killing him. Surely it cannot be right to attack a man in the middle of the night to risk your own life or his when he may be unarmed and not a threat to you? This God was evil for he let you fight him to the death in the dark even though it is wrong. The rule should not be worrying about night and day. What it should be worried about is the extent of vision the owner of the house had when the house was burgled. For example, a clear moonlit night with lights in the house would give the owner good vision at night. The utter stupidity and fundamentalism of the law is evident.

Exodus 22:29 tells us that God commanded the Hebrews to give him their first fruits and first-born animals and also their first-born sons. Robin Lane Fox thinks that the first-born sons were not to be offered as child-sacrifices to God but just given to God in the sense of being given to the priests for serving them (page 57, The Unauthorized Version). It is hard to believe that God would be that concerned for the priests who had wives and children and people looking after them. If he was, clearly then, the Old Testament system benefited the priests at the expense of the people which shows that it was a greedy scam to get walking all over the people in the name of God. If a religion existed like that today we would all know that it was just a racket for money and power.

Why the firstborn? The firstborn was regarded as the most important child culturally and legally and religiously. Now this has no relevance to the needs of the priests. They wouldn’t care what kind of child they were given. This supports the idea that God means child-sacrifice. The first-born was given to the priests as a slave or to be offered as a human sacrifice – more probably the latter.

I disagree with Lane Fox for the context is about sacrifice for animals were offered and fruits were offered in sacrifice so it must be the same for the babies. Moreover, the Law condemns sacrifices of children made to pagan gods but never the killing of firstborn male infants for God. Ezekiel 20:26 is thought to refer to this law but it says that God gave the Jews bad laws because they defiled his Sabbaths and even told them to pass their children through the fire – burn them to death as a sacrifice. But the Law never commanded burning babies to death and it says its laws are good and intended by God and it was later that the Jews began to desecrate Sabbaths. The bad laws were given by God through the false prophets. Ezekiel has the Jews of his own time in mind not the ones who received the Law. The law then in Exodus still stands.

The Law decrees that thieves must not back what they took but pay back double (Exodus 22:9). And God claims to be just. If you steal one sheep you have to pay back four (Exodus 21:37). He is forcing the victims to steal from the thieves! You cannot say that the extra has to be paid in compensation as well for that would depend on the hurt caused and be variable. But God lays down a fixed overpayment. The only excuse is that he harshness is geared towards deterring the person from sin. But deterrence only makes the thieves more devious and careful. It will make them so angry that they are hurt more than justice demands that they will become hardened in evil. Deterrence can be used as an excuse for any level of brutality. It is not for deterrence when the extra is paid to the victim instead of the poor. If it is just for putting people off crime then the poor would be a better choice for the extra fine.

Exodus 34 enjoins disrespect for other religions. Israel was told by God to smash their altars and statues in case Israel would start worshipping other gods. Israel was not to tolerate people like that or to make peace with them. The “in case” is the most important part of the nasty bits. (It shows that the same must hold true for Christians today for Jesus said that we must adore God only or with all our hearts.) Here we have God accused of commanding evil and cruelty over what has shown no signs of happening yet. He is accused of being paranoid. It would have been less cruel if he had seen that the people were going to join in the false worship first, verse 37 makes it clear that all this has been sanctioned by God. It is no answer to say that the other religions were evil. Why not engage in dialogue with them to change them and improve them? Plus Israel had a God of supernatural power looking after it so the fear of attack wasn’t an incentive.

The command to kill anybody who works on the Sabbath is unduly harsh (Exodus 35:2). Nobody can deny that this was unnecessary.

The God of Moses was a liar and if there were a God he would be very offended yb Moses’ portrayal of him. He liked the taste of blood when he coldly commanded the putting of people to death by stoning. The name of Moses should be hated as much as that of Hitler. Jesus Christ was not the Son of God for he acclaimed the ways of Moses and had been a lifelong Jew who cherished the Law.

Top of the Document

ERRORS IN THE REST OF LAW

We have found fatal errors in Exodus. What about the rest of the Law?

In Genesis, a snake tells Eve that she should eat of the tree that God said should not be eaten of for it would grant her wisdom. He convinced her that God’s threats about what would happen if she ate its forbidden fruit were false. She gave into temptation and ate the fruit. She really believed she was doing right (Genesis 3:6). God asked Eve why she ate the forbidden fruit. She explained that the talking snake duped her. Then God turned to the serpent and he told it that many curses would befall it for having done this. He agreed that she had been fooled but that did not stop him punishing her and all women by making the husband the master of woman and making childbirth an agonising horror. This was unjust. The New Testament says the woman was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14) not the man so Adam should have got the worst punishment for he knew what he was doing better. The punishment for Adam would have affected Eve as well but God was so evil he was not satisfied with that. The Church teaches that we have inherited Adam’s sin from the first moment of our existence – this called the Original Sin. Original sin should be stronger in men than women because of Adam but the Church does not teach that.

In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take his son to the land of Moriah and kill him as a sacrifice to God. God stopped him as he lifted the knife. God told Abraham a lie. He had told him that he wanted him to murder his son. He praised Abraham’s fanaticism implying that anybody who is sane is not a true man or woman of God for it gives the go-ahead to anybody who thinks God is telling them to murder.

Leviticus 4 says that you can sin without meaning to. Christians say that sin here means just breaking the law accidentally and is not sin in the sense of being responsible for sin. But the Law prescribes the sacrifices that have to be made to atone. Accidents have to be made up for too, they say. But only when they do harm and the Law here says that any inadvertent falling short of the Law needs to be atoned. They do God no harm so when he has to get compensation for them and is not satisfied with mere repentance and making it up to the people you hurt it is only to punish them. He does regard them as sins in the sense that they are something that he feels he has the right to dislike and punish you for. That is God’s problem when he is so stupid and hostile. You can’t be justly punished for inadvertent wrongdoing. “If anyone sins and does any of the things the Lord has forbidden, though he was not aware of it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17, AB). Living for God is hard enough and is atonement enough. The God made up in the Bible is being childish.

God says if you swore falsely to avoid making any restitution you have to add one fifth of what restitution was due and pay the restitution with it and that you will be pardoned when you give God an animal sacrifice (Leviticus 6). This completely contradicts the episode later on when the Lord demanded the murder of a man who insulted him when he was fighting (Leviticus 24). Perjury is worse blasphemy - it calls on God to bear witness for a lie. It harms others too unlike blasphemy.

Leviticus 12 says it is dirtier to have a girl than a boy.

God does not want disfigured people to serve as priests (Leviticus 21). The reason is that they will make God’s sanctuary unclean. But if God is there how can it be made unclean or dirty merely by a clean person who has deformity or lost a limb? God’s lack of compassion for the afflicted is striking.

God ordered that the tenth animal in a herd will be his or holy (Leviticus 27:32). The owner is not permitted to give God another animal in its place if it is not right and is not even allowed to examine it but has to part with it and the other one he offered in its place.

In Numbers 6, we learn that God forbids Nazirites to enter a house where someone has just died even if it is their father or mother. The reason given is that the Nazarite is sacred so paying one’s respects is devilish, the person could do it and take precautions to avoid becoming unclean.

The Law even tolerates the murder of a person for manslaughter under strict conditions (Numbers 35). The relation of the dead person is permitted to do it. Even if this were not evil it could be allowed only through the usual legal channels such as trials and convictions and letting the avenger work only under close supervision and should be. The Law contradicts itself here for it said that we must not commit murder.

God permits parents to have their sons put to death by stoning in Deuteronomy 21. If the boys are stubbornly disobedient and fond of stuffing themselves and of strong drink parents are given the right to have them killed. The parents must agree that this is the right course and are the only plaintiffs allowed. When satisfied that the parents are telling the truth the authorities agree to the execution. The Law does not say that the authorities have the right to refuse so they don’t. It is plain that there was no need for killing them so this law permits the needless killing of bothersome male children. It is not just for deterring other children though that is one of the reasons. Deterrence alone wouldn’t justify this. It is not the just penalty for high treason on the grounds that God was the head of state for it was left up to the parents to decide if or when they should have their son done in. High treason is the excuse the Christians and Jews give for defending the murders commanded by the God of the Law and now we see it refuted in this law. God does not say how bad the lad has to be before it was permissible to end his life. He would have done if he wanted all those who were guilty of high treason put to death. He is just saying that it is just for parents to have their sons killed if they want rid of them.

Christians often condemn this awful law and manage to say that it is inspired for there is no record of anyone dying because of it (Haley does that for instance). That does not prove that the law was ignored. And ignored or not it still proclaims that such killing is just so none can condemn it and maintain that it is inspired.

(Daughters must be excepted because they could be sold to their husbands to make a bit of money.)

The rule says that the killing is morally acceptable. Morality cannot change in itself its expression is what changes according to the times. Updating it is not denying this.

The Law is full of rules that benefit one class, the priesthood. First, obey the priests and their Law, second give God the best of your flock and the land and bring sacrifices which are then eaten. When you read the extent to which it benefited the priesthood you see that the Law is just an evil sham and a con trick.

Top of the Document

GOD COMMANDS GENOCIDE!

The prophet Samuel was sent by God to anoint and consecrate Saul as the first King of Israel. Saul was chosen to be king because of the word of the Lord to the prophet which commanded his appointment. Evidently, God agrees with Church and state being one though everybody these days knows it is a bad mixture. Anyway, as soon as Samuel met Saul he gushingly stated that God told him he wanted to punish the people of Amalek for getting in Israel’s way when Israel was coming out of Egypt long long ago in the days of Moses. God then ordered Saul to lead Israel against Amalek and to destroy them all and kill both man and woman and infants and sucklings. Even their animals were to be destroyed (1 Samuel 15). The people of Amalek were put under the ban which means that nothing that the people had was to be kept but all was to be completely obliterated.

To the obvious cruelty of this, Christians have many different things to say. Some say, despite the account in 1 Samuel 15, that God was only saying that the war would lead to the deaths of children and animals and he did not mean for them to be deliberately killed. He meant that the war had to be fought even if it would destroy some of them. But this ignores the fact that God commanded that the people of Amalek were to be utterly destroyed and the war was to be fought for revenge. When God was after revenge and nothing else it is obvious he does not care about the children who will be casualties of war at all and so would be content if Israel deliberately set out to slaughter children. Some say it was not to be fought for revenge and that God only meant that what the Amalekites did to Israel years before proved that they were dangerous and now was the time to punish them not for revenge but for the preservation and safety of Israel. God never mentioned in the passage that it was for any other than pure revenge and God could have settled for the scattering of the Amalekites and the destruction of most of the men but he wanted rid of them all. He didn’t even tell Israel to take the babies and adopt them. It was pure vindictive vengeance. The only answer that the Christians can really give is that God is the master of life and death and can kill whoever he wants or tell us to do it for him. So if you are fooled by a plausible prophet who tells you to kill go and do it. Any Christian who uses the answer needs to ask if he or she is really a good person.

Saul did as God said and destroyed the people of Amalek entirely (verse 8). The callous author of the story in the First Book of Samuel says that Israel kept some of the flocks and the cattle and destroyed all that was despicable and worthless meaning that the children who were murdered were worthless. Then God told Samuel that he was sorry for having chosen Saul for letting Israel take the flocks and the cattle when he was commanded to destroy everything. Samuel then prophesied that God had rejected Saul as king for not obeying his command literally. God said Saul’s sin of disobedience was as bad as divination (verse 23). Because of that sin Samuel had a word from God later to make David, son of Jesse, the new king. This shows how harsh God is. He was happy to cause loads of trouble over a minor disobedience. Saul could have done worse than keep the sheep and cattle instead of destroying them. Morality states that he did the right thing in letting those animals live so the lesson is that God does not see morality as commonsense sees it. Saul repented and still God would not relent (verse 25). As Saul had brought King Agag of the Amalekites back to Israel with him as a prisoner, Samuel took Agag before the Lord at Gilgal and there he cut him to pieces. God though he was quite chatty with Samuel did nothing to stop him. God evidently approved of this heinous and inexcusable murder. Samuel explained that his motive was revenge for Agag had butchered people when he was king (verse 33). What next? Making Jack the Ripper a prophet of God?

The fanaticism of Saul and Israel for listening to Samuel as if he spoke the word of God is very disturbing. The Bible itself fails to give any evidence that Samuel was indeed a real prophet and it expects us to approve of the horrendous things he commanded. In doing so, it commands us to become as vile in our hearts as Samuel and his God were.

Top of the Document

EXODUS 3:22, THE THIEVES OF GOD

God killed the first born of Egypt over Egypt keeping Israel as slaves so the Egyptians were understandably delighted to get rid of them (Exodus 12:33).

God gave a message to Pharaoh that Israel must not leave empty-handed but must take Egyptian treasures with them (Exodus 3:22). God said that he would enable this to be done as a favour for his people.

The Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties states that there is no problem with God willing such a thing (page 110-1). The Israelites worked for nothing so they were just getting their wages and they had no peace or pleasure so they were entitled to some compensation. But both cultures believed that slavery was a justified institution so even if there was no objective stealing the Israelites meant to steal and the Egyptians would have seen it as stealing. It was stealing in so far as all concerned believed it was.

The book also claims that when the Egyptians gave of their own accord there can be no objection. But the treasures were forced out of the Egyptians. The Egyptians were convinced that if they did not give treasure to the Israelites and wave them goodbye that they would all end up dead.

God must have changed his mind about stealing later when Moses got the Law and forbade it.

Top of the Document

CONCLUSION

All attempts to prove that the Bible is the word of God fail and are stupid, irresponsible and are fabricated. The Bible commands and commanded much evil and it itself is a clear testimony that religion is not a good thing as it can be dangerous and that those who try to defend it are a disgrace.

FURTHER READING

A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971

A Test of Time, David Rohl, Century, London, 1995

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, Undated

An Act of God, Graham Philips, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1998

Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press Bucks, 1988

Attack on the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1965

Belief and Make-Believe, GA Wells, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1991

Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1985

But the Bible Does Not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room Press, London, 1966

Catholicism and Christianity, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928

Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988

Creation and Evolution, Dr Alan Hayward, Triangle, London, 1994

Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986

Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982

Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1990

Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995

Free Inquiry, Fall 1998, Vol 18, No 4, Council for Secular Humanism, Amherst, New York

God and the Human Condition, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London, 1967

God Cannot Lie, David Alsobrook, Diasozo Trust, Kent, 1989

God, Science and Evolution, Prof E H Andrews, Evangelical Press, Herts, 1985

God’s Word, Final Infallible and Forever, Floyd C McElveen, Gospel Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, 1985

Hard Sayings, Derek Kidner, InterVarsity Press, London, 1972

How and Why Catholic and Protestant Bibles Differ, Carolyn Osiek, RSCJ and Donald Senior, CP, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1983

How to Interpret the Bible, Fergus Cleary SJ, Ligouri Publications, Missouri, 1981

In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996

Inspiration in the Bible, Fr Karl Rahner, Herder and Herder, New York, 1966

It Ain’t Necessarily So, Investigating the Truth of the Biblical Past, Matthew Sturgis, Headline Books, London, 2001

Jehovah of the Watch-tower, Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Bethany House Publishers, Minnesota, 1974

Let’s Weigh the Evidence, Which Bible is the Real Word of God? Barry Burton, Chick Publications, Chino, California, 1983

Know What You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1973

Know Why You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1971

New Age Bible Versions, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation, Tennessee, 1993

New Evangelicalism An Enemy of Fundamentalism, Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1984

None of These Diseases, SI McMillen MD, Lakeland, London 1966

Our Perfect Book the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1958

Proof the Bible is True, Rev JMA Willans BD, Dip.Theol. Vermont Press, Larne, 1982

Radio Replies Vol 3, Radio Replies Press, Minnesota, 1942

Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974

Remarks on the New King James Version and Revised Authorised Version, DK Madden, 35 Regent Street, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, 7005, 1991

Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, Charles Pellegrino, The Softback Preview, New York, 1995

Science and the Bible, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988

Science Held Hostage What’s Wrong With Creation Science and Evolutionism, Howard J Van Till/Davis A.Young/Clarence Menninga, IVP, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, 1988

Science Speaks, Peter W Stoner and Robert C Newman, Moody Press, Chicago, 1976

Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967

Testament, The Bible and History, John Romer, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988

The Authority of the Bible, Ambassador College, Pasadena, California, 1980

The Bible Fact or Fantasy, John Drane, Lion, Oxford, 1989

The Bible is the Word of God, Jimmy Thomas, Guardian of Truth, Kentucky

The Bible or Evolution? William Jennings Bryan, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee

The Bible, The Biography, Karen Armstrong, Atlantic Books, London, 2007

The Bible, Questions People Ask, A Redemptorist Pastoral Publication, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1980

The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone Books, New York, 2002

The Canon of Scripture, FF Bruce, Chapter House, Glasgow, 1988

The Church of Rome and the Word of God, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant Truth Society, London, Undated

The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987

The Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guilford, Surrey, 1994

The History of Christianity, Lion, Herts, 1982

The King James Version Defended, Edward F Hills, The Christian Research Press, Iowa, 1973

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E Brown, Joseph A Fitzmyer, Roland E Murphy, Geoffrey Chapman, New York 1990

The Theology of Inspiration, John Scullion SJ, Mercier, Cork, 1970

The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992

Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, John R Rice Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943

What is the Bible? Henri Daniel-Rops, Angelus Books, Guild Press, New York, 1958

Which Version Now? Bob Sheehan, Carey Publications, 5 Fairford Close, Haywards Heath, Sussex RH16 3EF

Who is a Fundamentalist? Dr Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1982

Why Does God..? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls , Bucks, 1970

Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, Freeman, New York, 1997

BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:

The Amplified Bible

WEB

Final Response by Steven Carr to Dr Wilkinson

www.bowness.demon.co.uk/wilkin6.htm

Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious?

www.christiantruth.com/canon.html

In Response to William Webster’s: The Canon, Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious

www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/Webster.html

Creationism This shows that the prime creationist apologist Duane Gish has been corrected many times for his errors and misunderstandings of his subject and has still repeated the same errors afterwards to make his case look good. He is perverting the evidence purposely. He has been known to make up quotations for the authorities he cites as evidence. He lies to prove that the skeleton Lucy which shows a transition between animal to man was just a monkey and could not walk upright. Both of his claims are false.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

Dennis Mc Kinsey, Biblical Errancy

http://members.aol.com/darrwin2/iss171.html

Argues that the Fundamentalist claim that when the book of Leviticus says that the life is in the blood it was stating an unknown scientific fact and showing that the book was written by God is wrong. McKinsey says that since the context of this verse is about sacrifice to God it means spiritual life or holiness is in the blood and is not on about physical life. This page gives some excellent criticisms of the fantasies and lies of Henry Morris and the Institute of Creation Research. It is obvious that the fact that the Institute of Creation Research could not possibly be called scientific though it claims that label as its bedrock next the Bible for you cannot prove something as odd as creation. Creation is something coming out of nothing and who is to say that something just as bizarre as this and something that we cannot even think of is not the reason why things exist? Creation is an assumption and the idea of a God making a creation that is not part of him is incoherent for if there was only God and God is his power and God is infinite and it takes infinite power to put something where nothing was then it follows that far from creating God just metamorphosed himself into the cosmos so that Morris and me and everybody else is God.

Science in the Bible? Dr M Magee

www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/440BibleScience.html

Why It’s a Load of Old Cobblers, Adrian Barnett

www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html

Exposes the utter absurdity of the Noah’s Ark story in the Bible

Steven Carr, Critique of Josh McDowells Non_Messianic Prophecies This Site cannot be overly recommended. It is superb.

www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_carr/non-messianic.html

New Testament Contradictions, Paul Carlson

www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

Rabbits do not chew their cud, Alleged Bible Contradictions

http://unhindered.com/apolo/contradictions/index.html

The Bible as History Flunks New Archaeological Tests

www.10.nytimes.com/library/arts/072900david-bible.html

Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKinsey

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart31.html

This is one of McKinsey’s online magazines. The magazine is excellent for it gives the fundies the chance to respond and carefully exposes their twisted reasoning.

This particular issue says that Herod was not a king though the New Testament says he was for the Roman tetrarchs were the rulers. It says Matthew’s story that Herod massacred the boys of Bethlehem to get rid of the baby Jesus is false for Josephus liked to bring up the terrible things that Herod did and never mentioned this one. It also says that the story of Jesus being nailed between two thieves is fiction because theft was not a capital crime. it argues that when Luke said about Augustus decreeing that the whole world must engage in a census it was a lie for Augustus never had the results which he would have done. Genesis 11:26 says that when Teran was 70 he sired Abram and Nahor and Haran. The trouble is it says Abram was 75 when his father died and yet his father died at 205. The Christians argue that Genesis 11:26 does not say Abram’s dad was 70 when he was born though the passage cannot mean anything else. They fudge the problem by saying that just because Abram was mentioned first that does not mean he was born first. It does in the way the verse is written for why say Terah became a father at 70 and list the sons if you don’t mean one of them was born that year and it would naturally have to be the first one mentioned Abram. Pity he didn’t point out that when the fundies cannot agree among themselves how to reconcile Bible contradictions that it shows that their solutions are just contrived and fraudulent.

Top of the Document