Creating a New Version of Leviticus to Support Gay Sex

I can say without equivocation that Dr. Dershowitz's claim is nothing more than scholarly fabrication.

By Michael Brown Published on July 23, 2018

What do you do when the biblical text is against your position, explicitly so? What do you do when not one single verse supports your viewpoint? It’s simple. You create new verses out of thin air. You rewrite the Bible to your liking. That’s exactly what biblical scholar Idan Dershowitz has done.

In his New York Times op-ed piece, Dr. Dershowitz summarizes his 2017 academic article published in the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel. (Is it any surprise that the Times decided to publish his piece?)

Dr. Dershowitz claims that “Before Leviticus was composed, outright prohibitions against homosexual sex — whether between men or women — were practically unheard-of in the ancient world.” And he believes that Leviticus was “created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer.”

He then argues that “an earlier edition of Leviticus … may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.” (Note carefully: He means a non-existent edition of Leviticus. A Leviticus that is the figment of his own imagination. A Leviticus without a shred of textual, manuscript support in any ancient language at any period of time.)

Not only so, but Dr. Dershowitz even claims that “there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men.”

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

As someone trained in the same scholarly field as Dr. Dershowitz, I can say without equivocation that this is nothing more than scholarly fabrication. It should be rejected as complete and utter nonsense.

Homosexual Acts and Ancient Idolatrous Culture

Let’s remember that:

1) There is not one positive word in the Bible about homosexual practice.

2) Every reference to homosexual practice in the Bible is categorically negative.

3) Every scriptural example of marriage and family is heterosexual.

How then does Dr. Dershowitz come to such outrageous conclusions?

He first observes that in the ancient Near Eastern world, “outright prohibitions against homosexual sex — whether between men or women — were practically unheard-of.”

It is true that such prohibitions are largely lacking in the surrounding, ancient world. But there are some laws that prescribe harsh punishment for certain acts of male sodomy. So, this is an overstatement.

More importantly, it appears that homosexual acts were part of ancient Near Eastern idolatrous culture. In other words, they were part and parcel of the pagan culture which the Bible condemns. No wonder, then, that more emphasis was not put on prohibiting these acts. In fact, Leviticus confirms this, stating that sinful acts like these were widely practiced in the surrounding, ancient world. Israel was not to follow their example! (See Leviticus 18:1-3, 24-30.)

Dershowitz’s “Discovery”

But that is not the heart of Dr. Dershowitz’s argument.

Using a “little detective work,” he claims to have discovered that the alleged “original” text of Leviticus 18 only forbade homosexual incest. All other homosexual acts were permitted.

This argument is entirely without textual support (something that needs to be repeated over and again). It’s also bizarre to argue that in ancient Israel, men could have sex with as many men as they desired, without penalty, so long as they were not close blood relatives. Yet they could only have sex with the woman (or, women) they were married to, and at that, with certain purity guidelines.

Being gay in ancient Israel made for quite the party life, and with God’s alleged sanction, at that.

Homosexual practice is forbidden by God, but there is the possibility of forgiveness, redemption, and new life for all who put their trust in the Redeemer.

What, then, is the “discovery” that Dr. Dershowitz has made to support this claim?

He argues that in Leviticus 18:7 and 18:14, the specific wording of the Hebrew text masks the fact that, originally, the verses outlawed sex between a man and his father or mother (v. 7) and between a man and his uncle (v. 14). In the current version of Leviticus (again, the one and only version we have), he writes, “A law prohibiting sex with one’s father fades away, and a law against sex with one’s uncle is reinterpreted as a ban on sex with one’s aunt.”

As for Leviticus 18:22, which explicitly prohibits sex between two men (see also Leviticus 20:13), that was allegedly added at a later time in Israelite history. As Dr. Dershowitz writes, “In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.”

The Matter is Settled

Of course, same-sex relations had never been permissible in ancient Israel. (To say it once more, there is zero evidence to support the opposite position.) The two verses cited by Dr. Dershowitz do not support his thesis.

To respond briefly:

1) Because all homosexual relations were forbidden, there was no reason to forbid specific homosexual acts.

2) In contrast, because many heterosexual relations were permissible, it was important to single out which ones were forbidden, which is what Leviticus 18 does.

3) Leviticus 18:7 and 14 forbid sleeping with the wife of your father or the wife of your father’s brother, acts which would also directly shame one’s father. As rendered in the New Jewish Publication Society Version, respectively, “Your father’s nakedness, that is, the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover; she is your mother — you shall not uncover her nakedness.” And, “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother: do not approach his wife; she is your aunt.”

4) There is no textual evidence — not the slightest linguistic clue of any kind — that Leviticus 18:22 was added later to this chapter.

5) What we call “the Bible” today is based on the texts that we have. In other words, the Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek texts that have been passed down through the generations. It is not based on some reconstructed texts created out of thin air.

That means that for all those who hold these texts to be God’s Word, the matter has long been settled. Homosexual practice is forbidden by God, but there is the possibility of forgiveness, redemption, and new life for all who put their trust in the Redeemer.

 

Michael Brown earned his Ph.D. from New York University in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, and has published Old Testament and Semitic articles in peer-reviewed journals as well as contributed to major academic works and authored scholarly monographs on Old Testament subjects.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • JP

    Thank you Dr Brown for your scholarly work and helping Christians defend the faith against lgbt propaganda. I find that those who are against the clear teachings of Scripture are merely speculating without any facts to support their assertions. Sadly, many fall for this nonsense.

    • Jim

      It’s sad that people like yourself work so hard to deprive others of the same rights that you and I enjoy.

      • JP

        What rights? There is no right to homosexual preferences in the Constitution.

        • Jim

          The right to marry the one they love.
          The right to services provided for others.
          Etc

          • JP

            That ruling was not based on the Constitution nor logic.

          • Jim

            Based on the fact that our Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a civil right on 14 occasions.

          • Jude MacAbaech

            Our Supreme Court did not write the Constitution, and throughout its history its justices have made flawed interpretations based on their personal prejudices. So unless you can cite the passage in the Constitution that affirms gay marriage a civil right, you got nothing – unless you agree with those who ruled that even though Dred Scott was in a free state, once a slave always a slave (more accurately they ruled that Mr. Scott was just luggage), or with those who ruled that separate but equal is the solution to the descended-from-slaves problem.

          • Jim

            Never said they did. Just by comparing slavery to homosexuality, you’ve shown your bigotry card. smh/

          • Chip Crawford

            We see who’s playing cards … go fish

          • Jim

            Bless your heart

          • Hmmm…

            Yours could be as well …

          • Jim

            Opinions vary

          • NickRepublic

            New account, not surprised. Gutless

          • Chip Crawford

            He probably uses up an identity and has to change out.

          • Jim

            yawn….

          • NickRepublic

            You most implicitly did. You implied the Supreme Court justices WERE THE LAW and they are not. Wow, do you practice being this stupid or do you just wake up this way?

          • Jim

            Nope. I said that they ruled marriage to be a civil right.

          • Jude MacAbaech

            I was wrong. You have less than the nothing I wrote about when I typed ” unless you can cite the passage in the Constitution that affirms gay marriage a civil right, you got nothing”. Not only can you not cite such passage (it does not exist), you resorted to a failed attempt at insult by calling me a bigot with an allegation I did something I did not. My reference to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision was a simple example, accompanied by another example, that SCOTUS is not infallible. The comparison of which you accuse me is nothing more than a figment of your limited imagination. I’ve wasted too much time with a less than nothing. Have a nice day and God bless you and yours.

          • Jim

            The constitution is interpreted by SCOTUS. There is no right to marriage at all in the constitution but the Supreme Court in 14 rulings stated that there is a civil right to marriage. One the reasons we now have marriage equality. Bye now

          • Jude MacAbaech

            The Constitution does state: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment X to the Constitution of the United States). So SCOTUS lacks any authority to opine on marriage at all. This authority belongs to the states. Blocked.

          • Jim

            Lol

          • Jim

            Thanks!

          • JP

            These rulings are not based on the Constitution but on the corrupt minds of a few justices. This needs to be fixed.

          • Jim

            So the SCOTUS justices are corrupt for having ruled that marriage is a civil right? Laughable at best.

          • JP

            If you cared about the law and the Constitution as you claim then you should not be for this ruling.

          • Jim

            This ruling neither harms nor affects you or me. I have no inclination towards other men.

          • JP

            Tell that to bakers who are having their rights violated by homosexuals and those who support them.
            Tell that to the parents who are being forced to having their children indoctrinated with the lgbt propaganda in schools.
            Tell that to the woman who are being forced to have fake women in their bathrooms and showers.

          • Jim

            The bakers discriminated.
            Gay people exist and kids need to know
            People have been using the restroom with trans folks for a very long time

          • JP

            Of course they discriminated and they have that right. All businesses do. Facebook and Utube do it all the time.
            Why do children need to know the sexual preferences and perversions of adults?
            It may be true that gender dysphoria men have been using the restrooms of women for a long. Now they and any man who thinks he is a girls wants public acceptance to use the girls bathrooms and locker rooms.
            Would you allow a 12 year old girl to be alone in the same bathroom and locker room with a gender dysphoria man or a guy who thinks he is a girl?

          • Jim

            I have two teenage daughters and would have no problem with them being in a restroom or otherwise with a trans person.
            Public accommodation laws say differently.

          • Chip Crawford

            Some people love and take personal responsibility for the well-being of their children. ques cera cera, with you … sad. pathetic

          • Jim

            Laughable. My girls are about to graduate high school and probably more mature than yourself.

          • Chip Crawford

            Wow … Of course maturity is the issue of man sized and weight transgender girls/women in the restroom or locker room … Poor girls … So, your paternal heart leads you to say, now girls, remember to use the same pronoun! Hopefully, there’s a mother to have a little more relevant and involved oversight and care.

          • Jim

            Married almost 20 years.

          • Chip Crawford

            Is that what you tell your girls to say in the bathroom or locker room if a weighty former male identifying person attempts to molest them? There are accounts of such, obvious and inevitable to most thinking humans.

          • Jim

            Those aren’t trans folks in most cases. There are cases of most anything happening. They know how to handle a weapon.

          • JP

            Have you asked them? How about your wife?

          • Jim

            Yes I have. They have no issue with it.

          • AndRebecca

            Why isn’t there an issue with it? I’m beginning to see where you are coming from.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            How did the bakers discriminate?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            The is no right to marry or right to services of provided by others either.

          • Jim

            Thankfully our Supreme Court thinks differently. Smarter than all of them aren’t you?

          • Joseph Matthews

            The supreme court is made up by a bunch of perverts

          • Jim

            LMAO!

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Jim the Supreme Court is not supposed to think differently they supposed uphold the constitution as part of the judicial branch or any other branch for that matter should

  • Jim

    The matter is only settled for those who believe the bible. For the rest of us, homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality. Two men or two women who love each other are just that and nothing more. To each their own.

    • JP

      Wish that were the case. The lbgt crowd is trying to push their propaganda and lies on all of us and that must be resisted with the facts.

      • Jim

        What lies and what facts?

        • JP

          For starters that homosexuality is healthy and normal. Its not. Just look at the health stats from the CDC for starters.

          • Jim

            It is normal and nothing unhealthy about it if you’re using common sense and protection.

          • JP

            No its not. The body is not designed for same sex sex. Thats why its so harmful to those who engage in it.

          • Jim

            I know quite a few gay men. Two who have been together 30 years and another couple together for 17 years. None who have died.
            However, I have treated quite a few pediatric cases of hiv.

          • Chip Crawford

            It would follow that you know a lot of gay men along with their histories. Are the pediatric cases of hiv related to the pedophiles you also know … ?

          • Jim

            Not at all me wizard. Does your mommy know you use her computer?

          • AndRebecca

            What a silly answer.

          • Jim

            Opinions vary

          • Tim Pan

            Are you a homosexual?

          • Jim

            Nope. Married almost 20 years with teenage daughters.

          • Tim Pan

            why are you defending homosexuality?

          • Jim

            Sad part about it is that it shouldn’t need defending. They are our fellow humans and deserve to be treated equally.

          • Tim Pan

            under the laws of the nation , but not in the Kingdom of God. You need to understand the difference

          • Jim

            Since I don’t believe in supernatural beings…. The laws of our nation are the only ones I concern myself with….

          • JP

            Then you should be concerned that these rulings are not based on the Constitution.

          • Jim

            They’re based in law.

          • JP

            Why should equality be based on a person’s sexual preferences?

          • Jim

            Why shouldn’t they be able to marry?

          • Joseph Matthews

            You have no proof that homosexuality is normal or that people are born that way and because it is not marriage

          • Joseph Matthews

            Because it’s not a marriage

          • Jim

            Thankfully the law of the land says different. No gods needed for marriage

          • JP

            They should not be able to marry because their relationship fails the qualifications of what is necessary for a marriage. To have a marriage you must have a husband and a wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Without a male and a female you don’t have a real marriage. What a homosexual “marriage” is, is a fake marriage.

          • Jim

            Just your opinion. Thankfully our legal system says differently. No gods needed for marry. Kids aren’t required either.

          • JP

            So you like being lied to.

          • Jim

            Care to show me where either kids or gods are needed for marriage? Is procreation a requirement for marriage? Where does it say, now, that there has to be opposite sexes for marriage? Hint: the bible doesn’t count

          • JP

            Why would the most important, the most influential book in history not count?
            Yes, the primary purpose for marriage is procreation. Without it, the human race would die.
            Homosexual “marriage” offers nothing positive to society.

          • Jim

            Sorry but nowhere does it say in our legal system that marriage is necessary in order to have kids. Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract between two people.

          • JP

            Of course it doesn’t say anything about that. That is another reason why homosexual “marriage” is absurd. It cannot produce children. Thus its useless to society.

          • Jim

            Lots if marriages don’t produce kids. Fail…again..

          • JP

            Marriage is never meant to be childless.

          • Jim

            Opinions vary

          • JP

            Without procreation we don’t have families and you don’t get families from sex between 2 homosexuals.

          • Jim

            Procreation isn’t a prerequisite for marriage

          • Chip Crawford

            Has your wife confronted you with your degeneracy?

          • Jim

            Wow! What degeneracy? Supporting my fellow humans? Lol!

          • Joseph Matthews

            They’re perverts

          • Jim

            Maybe you’re the pervert. Nobody knows

          • Joseph Matthews

            Please explain to me what exactly is normal about homosexuality

          • Jim Walker

            If Love is Love, and Homosex is the ultimate realization, why would you need protection and common sense when having sexual intercourse ? Might as well go raw from behind.
            You see, its not normal and you know it and nature did not design it that way (I’d like to say God but you don’t believe Him)

          • Jim

            Nothing abnormal about it. Many straight people have that type of sex. smh

          • Jim Walker

            Anyone who has that type of sex is wrong, whether straight or not.

          • Jim

            Your opinion.

        • Chip Crawford

          Spousal abuse among homosexuals is 300 times what it is among heterosexuals. Homosexuality takes 20 years off the average homosexual’s life, while cigarettes only take 7 years off, yet the government puts a warning on cigarettes. The suicide rate is 2 to 3 times higher. It destroys people’s lives. We need to tell people the truth and take a stand about things that destroy people’s lives.

          • Jim

            You are a liar and propagating lies that have been thorough debunked.
            Their lives are just as long. Paul Cameron produced that garbage research and it cost him his job. Pathetic.

          • Chip Crawford

            There is a fierce political backlash afoot, which has nothing to do with facts and/or truth. Naturally, you have no trouble finding lying and denying with what you disagree. When it comes to the Bible, God knows, and he cares. While you are kicking that now, hold onto it. He is and will be there for you. However, while he loves you; he does not love your sin, but has the power to break its hold … even when that hold becomes a squeeze.

          • Jim

            Where have I lied?

          • NickRepublic

            http://psychologyucdavisedu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obithtml Not debunked only challenged and not very successfully. Still copying and pasting others very faulty “refutations”, Jim? Try again the methodology was faulty only to those who didn’t like the conclusion drawn.

          • Jim

            Citations me wizard. You’re just spouting lies cooked up by the religious

          • Chip Crawford

            Just that belligerent spirit that rares up, demanding that everyone serve you. The assertions you make are the ones in want of establishment.

          • Jim

            So you’ve got nothing as expected.

          • Chip Crawford

            Ok, we’ll not expect to hear anything further from you given that you cannot establish, if you are honest … BTW, the childish smack talk.does not qualify as substance.

          • Jim

            The inadequacy of the Cameron group’s approach is evident from internal inconsistencies within their own data. Compare the data about lesbians reported in their obituary study, for example, to data from their so-called national survey.
            In their obituary study, the Cameron group claimed that the average lesbian life-span is similar to that of gay men who do not have AIDS (“under 50 years” versus “mid-40s,” respectively). But if this is true, and if obituaries are indeed a valid source for this type of data, the ratio of gay male obituaries to lesbian obituaries should be about the same as the ratio of gay men to lesbians in the population.

            From their survey data, the Cameron group has claimed to know the number of gay men and lesbians in the population. If we believed their numbers, we would set the ratio of gay men-to-lesbians at about 1.6-to-1 (or approximately 2.6-to-1 if bisexuals are omitted).

            But the ratio of gay male-to-lesbian obituaries in the Cameron group’s study is quite different – approximately 6-to-1 if AIDS and violent deaths are excluded, 32-to-1 if they are included.

            Thus, at least one data set has to be wrong. Either the obituaries data do not include a representative sample of lesbians, or the Cameron group’s population estimates based on their survey data are invalid.

            An observer with training in research methodology would most likely conclude that both sets of data are fatally flawed.

            This example is provided as simply one illustration of the flaws in the Cameron group’s methods.

          • Chip Crawford

            If everything is bunk, then why are you so defensive about it? You were very mild with JP, though he countered your assertions. Me thinks you protest too much … and that’s usually because this data strikes a nerve. If it’s all bogus, why not just brush if off?

          • Jim

            Approximately 23 percent of LGBTQ men and 50 percent of LGBTQ women experience abuse from their intimate partners (VAWNET). This means that members of the LGBTQ community are slightly more likely to experience abuse than straight couples.

            Where did you get your 300% number? Sounds like pure prevarication.

          • NickRepublic

            Which website was this copied from?

          • Jim

            Why don’t you Google it and see? I would at least be curious. And I hate being uninformed and wrong. But that’s just me. You are apparently ok with taking a position without examining all the evidence.So

          • AndRebecca

            The CDC and others have the stats on homosexuality.

          • Jim

            Not the citations I asked for

          • AndRebecca

            The CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), plus you can do a search “partner abuse among homosexuals” and you will find they don’t report partner violence as often as heterosexuals.

          • Jim

            I asked for chip to provide a citation to his 300% statistic. That’s all.

          • AndRebecca

            Don’t know about the 300% but the rest is accurate.

          • Chip Crawford

            He doesn’t either; there is no 300%.

          • AndRebecca

            So where did you come up with 30 times? You stated “Spousal abuse among homosexuals is 30 times what it is among heterosexuals.” Might as well be 300% like jim stated.

          • Chip Crawford

            I agree; it might as well be

          • Jim

            Nope. The lower life expectancy is also false.

          • AndRebecca

            It isn’t false. You can easily access the CDC and find out.

          • Red Byrd

            72 years old and have NEVER seen a happy queer yet!

          • Jim

            Liar, liar, pants on fire!!

    • mike

      sex is not love, sex without love is physical which proves sex iS reproductive and that is its primary function proving homosexual behavior is a LEARNED AND NOT NATURAL to the physical

      • Jim

        Nice word salad. Not all sex is reproductive and that has never been a prerequisite for marriage.
        They’re born that way. Prove me wrong

        • Joseph Matthews

          ” They’re Born that way” yeah right

        • Joseph Matthews

          You have no proof that homosexuality is normal or that people are born that way and because it is not marriage duh

          • Jim

            How old are you?

        • mike

          re read SLOWLY COMPREHEND EACH FACT ..marriage is Biblical first recorded was Adam and Eve ordained by God Himself POINT PROVEN not born that way

          • Trilemma

            God gave Adam a woman and told him to make babies. There was no wedding. There was no exchange of vows. Did Eve have a say in this arrangement?

          • mike

            wrong re read the account SLOWLY , Adam could not find any comparable mate and asked the Creator to make him one , which God did by taking a rib ( because a woman is to be side by side – not above or below ) and told them to be fruitful( THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT IS LOVE) and MULTIPLY and that they should become one FLESH , Eve agreed

          • Trilemma

            Please quote the verse where Adam requests a woman. Please quote the verse where Eve verbally agrees to be Adam’s woman.

          • mike

            read it for yourself start with the Gen 1:26 -31 , continue to read chapter 2 and you will see the first marriage occur at the end verse 24

          • AndRebecca

            You need to re-read Genesis.

          • Jim

            The Bible is a book of fables. Proves nothing

          • Chip Crawford

            No, that’s you

          • Jim

            What a great reply!

          • Chip Crawford

            sadly true at present

          • Jim

            Opinions vary

          • Chip Crawford

            Facts don’t

          • mike

            only a FOOL denies the fact that ALL CREATION REQUIRES A CREATOR and nothing in existence is self created

          • Jim

            Proof of said creator? None.

          • Chip Crawford

            Creation not being the proof of a creator — that is flat imbecilic
            It’s also what you can come up with to say to something you cannot refute, just lie and deny

          • Jim

            Haven’t lied at all. I asked for proof of a creator. You have none.

          • Chip Crawford

            says the blind man who cannot see, though it be before him
            You’re trying to work in the dark, bub; that’s a large part of your problem

          • Jim

            Bub, I spent 18 years in the church.

          • Chip Crawford

            Makes the point. There are all kinds of churches, some barely fitting the description. It’s the personal connection to the Lord, the condition of your own spirit – dead or alive. There have been pastors of churches of decades length decide to take a class in a Bible school and find out they’d never been saved – never accepted Jesus’ offer of salvation for themselves. It is a time and place event, not osmosis enhanced by duration.

          • Jim

            Typical response. Basically, you’re only a real christian as long as they believe as you do.

          • Chip Crawford

            It’s not mental assent with creeds. It is a born again experience. A person receiving Jesus is regenerated in their spirit. It is an unmistakable transformation.

          • AndRebecca

            You spent 18 years in a church and this is the best you can do? Pitiful.

          • Jim

            yawn….

          • AndRebecca

            Right…You’re very deep.

          • Chip Crawford

            Saw you on another page being shut down by some Catholics. Oddly, you were trying to make a case for God and the Bible. Here, you resist both.

          • Jim

            Wasn’t me chip. I’ve been an atheist for about 35 years.

          • mike

            you exist FOOL explain it

          • Jim

            My parents created me.

          • AndRebecca

            How Biblical.

          • mike

            and WHO created the FIRST PARENTS?

          • Jim

            Evolution. There is no who.

          • mike

            HAHAHAHA wow are you STUPID! EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY ( not a fact) and no wonder you have very low esteem and IQ , you rather believe that YOU are mutant from apes (or fish or bacteria ) than to KNOW YOU ARE CREATED IN IMAGE THE SUPREME BEING WHO HAS CREATED ALL THINGS!!!
            here is a fact of reality : nothing exists on its own (self creation) all things have to be made in order to exist

          • Jim

            Love the ad hominem! Sorry but the is no supreme being. Just the man behind the curtain.

          • mike

            only FOOL BELIEVES THERE IS NO GOD

          • Jim

            Opinions vary…

          • mike

            no thats a fact NOT AN OPINION

          • Jim

            Nope

          • Chip Crawford

            Okay, man behind the curtain: It’s not for you to say to those who know better. So shut up, and don’t whine about what you find when you come to a Christian site. The God you despise says what mike just presented. If you don’t like God’s “ad hominem,” then get right with him.

          • Jim

            I don’t despise your god. I don’t believe in the existence of any gods. You’re the one who complained about juvenile comments.

          • Chip Crawford

            Aw shut up

          • Jim

            You first

          • Ken Abbott

            A fable is a work of fiction, usually composed to convey a message or moral truth for instruction (which is why the stories attributed to Aesop conclude with a moral statement). By writing that the Bible is
            “a book of fables,” do you intend to label all 66 books as works of fiction? If so, on what scholarly basis?

          • Chip Crawford

            And:
            The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine inspiration.

            Go to any library you like, and find 66 books which match the characteristics of the 66 books in the Bible. You must choose 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, written on 3 different continents. However, they must share a common storyline, a common theme, and a common message, with no historical errors or contradictions.

            it’s a diverse collection of 66 thoroughly harmonious books with one single theme that contains a broad variety of genres: historical, narrative, epic, law, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, gospel, apocalyptic and letters.

            It contains a broad variety of genres: historical, narrative, epic, law, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, gospel, apocalyptic and letters. Many Christians are not aware of this fact, let alone non-believers.

            These authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen, doctors, kings, prophets, tax collectors and scholars. Most of these authors never knew one another personally.

          • Jim

            Ok grammar police. A book of fictional stories.

          • Ken Abbott

            My remark wasn’t intended to correct your use of “fable” but to ascertain to what degree you consider the Bible to be a work of fiction: in part or in its entirety? If the latter, I think you will find yourself in very thin company and mostly among the academically disreputable.

    • Ken Abbott

      “The matter is only settled for those who believe the bible [sic].”

      So at basis, you agree with and confirm the conclusion of the article’s author, and, in fact, his entire thesis: “That means that for all those who hold these texts to be God’s Word, the matter has long been settled.”

      • Jim

        Absolutely. However, I believe the bible to be nothing more than a collection of ancient fables.

        • Ken Abbott

          Be that as it may, it’s extraneous to the purpose of Dr. Brown’s article.

          • Jim

            Agreed

          • Joseph Matthews

            Prove to me that homosexuality is normal and that people are born that way. I guarantee you that you will not find a homosexual baby

          • Trilemma

            I guarantee you will not find a heterosexual baby.

          • AndRebecca

            Oh, please do that.

          • Trilemma

            Do what?

          • AndRebecca

            Find a non-heterosexual baby.

          • Trilemma

            A newborn baby is neither homosexual nor heterosexual.

          • AndRebecca

            Their DNA says they are either male or female and will have in the future the hormones which will signal their attraction to the opposite sex. They aren’t asexual.

          • Trilemma

            A newborn baby is not sexually attracted to anyone and does not have sexual relations with anyone. Therefore, a newborn baby is neither heterosexual nor homosexual. People are more than their DNA. Typically, a person with XX sex chromosomes will grow up to be a heterosexual woman and a person with XY sex chromosomes will grow up to be a heterosexual man. Sometimes that’s not how it goes. For example, occasionally, a person with XY chromosomes will be born a girl and grow up to be a woman who is attracted to men.

          • AndRebecca

            Your first sentence is correct. From there it is downhill.

          • Trilemma

            How so?

    • Patmos

      “normal variant of human sexuality”

      It’s actually the exact definition of perversion. There is nothing normal about it.

      • Jim

        Not at all. Just your uneducated opinion

        • Joseph Matthews

          What Patmos said is right. you’re the one who’s in the wrong

          • Jim

            You sure showed me….

    • Jim Walker

      If you believe in such unions, then to you there is no boundaries anymore.
      What’s stopping anyone to love his tree and marry it ? Or his siblings, kids, his dog, pig and the latest is his robot.
      Are you OK if your son wants to marry a tree and drill a hole in its trunk ? Yeah it sounds crazy but LGBTQ was once upon a time crazy and it will always be.
      God sets the OB markers for a reason.

      • Jim

        Your ignorance abounds. Think about the nonsense you just posted. Are you in grade school?

        • Jim Walker

          You can’t just stop there, wouldn’t you ? It started with Man and Woman, they you accept LGBTQ unions, what’s stopping it to go farther than that?

          • Jim

            Harm. Same sex unions pose no harm. There’s also the issue of consent.

    • Joseph Matthews

      Why are you even here?

      • Jim

        Public forum

        • Chip Crawford

          That’s a dodge, not an answer

          • Jim

            I don’t care

          • Chip Crawford

            You have more than an observer’s interest in this subject. That’s plain.

          • Jim

            I have an interest in supporting my fellow man. I’m also about refuting the nonsense that you and your ilk try to push.

          • Chip Crawford

            haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, fellow man is about right. You flatter yourself: “about ‘refuting’ the nonsense.” Another huge laugh. You couldn’t manage a refute if you got a kit with step-by-step instructions. Ilks are neutral. Our ilk is good. Yours — hanging in the balance and found wanting. That’s why Jesus came – to make up the scale. We humbled ourselves before the Lord and he raised us up. You grub around because you refuse to do so and thus stay low — wow, what a bad ilk to be in …

          • Jim

            Wow, some more of that christian love. You make me laugh chip. You’ve posted easily refuted nonsense. Laughable at best.

          • Chip Crawford

            It’s love to involve with you at all. Ooey gooey is not a part of the remedy for someone in a house afire.

    • AndRebecca

      That isn’t true.

      • Jim

        Yup

        • AndRebecca

          There are people around the world of different religions and of no religion who don’t believe homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality. Right now homosexuality is a political issue with the globalists at the U.N telling the world it is normal. If it were considered normal, there wouldn’t be such an effort to convince people to change their thoughts about it.

          • Jim

            I look at it from a medical standpoint. All medical societies consider it a normal variation of human sexuality.

          • AndRebecca

            Really? Where can I find that information?

          • Chip Crawford

            Are you not currently employed? Most of us that post here through the day are retired. With teenagers, you would seem to be younger than retirement age.

          • Jim

            Not close to retirement. Lucky enough to only have to work 12 days a month.

  • PalaceGuard

    Dr. Dershowitz must be auditioning for a talking head gig on the History Channel. Unfortunately, he’ll fit right in.

  • Chip Crawford

    There’s a difference in not believing that homosexuality is not the right thing and hating homosexuals. The bible does not preach tolerance. It teaches love. There is a total difference between love and tolerance.

    Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.
    It’s loving yourself and hating the person if you do not tell them the truth. Love is not an excuse not to tell people the truth. It’s the truth spoken in love that will set people free. Many are afraid to stand up and speak. We say we know they will reject it, but with that, you are, in a sense, rejecting the truth for them. We need to tell people the truth and take a stand about things that destroy their lives.

    • Boris

      Your lies are not “truth.”

      • Chip Crawford

        Did you cut and paste this too? Good. Keep learning. We’re all pulling for your breakthroughs, no matter how small …

        • Jim

          Some of that childish smack talk hmm?

          • Chip Crawford

            Let this be a lesson to you: Your bad example can rub off.

          • Jim

            Blaming others for our own shortcomings …..

          • Chip Crawford

            “our” own? deferral. your “our” is on you, bub.

          • Jim

            Oh noes! The grammar police!!

          • Chip Crawford

            common sense, oh deflector

          • Jim

            Lol!

  • Boris

    The Bible has been evolving since it was first forged and faked.
    I like to call this The Bible’s Hollywood Makeover
    I think exercise is really important for maintaining your weight as well as staying healthy and living longer. Does anybody disagree? Let’s see what the Bible says.
    “For bodily exercise profiteth little; but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” – 1Tim 4:8 KJV
    So the King James Version of the Bible clearly says that exercise is of little profit especially when compared to godliness. This is an accurate rendering of the original Greek. I have the UBS Fourth Edition Greek New Testament and I read Koine Greek. My word for word wooden translation of this passage would be:
    “And for of body exercise towards little it is profitable…” Greek New Testament

    The King James Version of the Bible is a fairly accurate wooden rendering of the Greek New Testament. Now over the last century or so the Bible has undergone what we could call a “Hollywood makeover.” Unicorns became oxen, satyrs (a half-man, half-horse) are now called wild goats, dragons were renamed hyenas and this statement about exercise being of little value has been tampered with as well:
    “For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” – NLJV
    Notice how the NKJV has retranslated the passage to say that exercise is now of “a little” value or profit. This is VERY important. The addition of the word “a” the indefinite article makes all the difference and makes it seem like the Bible now says exercise is of a little profit. For years Christians have complained that the Jehovah’s Witnesses incorrectly inserted the word “a” in the beginning of John’s Gospel in their Bible the New World Translation. So it says that Jesus is “a god” instead of God. However in Ancient Greek there is no indefinite article and we have to insert it where it goes when we translate Greek to English. The JW’s do this correctly; they have the right translation. But when the “a” is added to this NKJV passage of 1Timothy about exercise it doesn’t belong there. It’s part of the Bible’s “Hollywood Makeover” which is being done to modernize the Bible and make it seem less absurd. Let’s see how the NIV translates this passage:
    “For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.” – NIV
    Now exercise according to the Bible is not just of “a little” profit but it is of “some value.” Look at this very carefully. Still don’t believe in evolution? The Bible is evolving right before your very eyes! God’s unchanging word is changing! It’s no wonder there are so many people who insist on sticking with the King James Version of the Bible. Look at how the New Living Translation translates this passage:
    “Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come. – NLT
    Now physical training is “good” according to the Bible! We’ve gone from of “little” profit to “a little profit” to “some value” to “good” in only about only forty years of this “Hollywood makeover” of the Bible. We all know physical exercise is good for us. Apparently whoever wrote 1Timothy was a bit unaware of the value of exercise. This might make it seem as though the Bible isn’t so divinely inspired especially when we read about other things like cockatrices, fiery serpents, satyrs, dragons, witches, etc. The passages of “scripture” that mention these things have been dishonestly removed, rewritten or edited beyond recognition from their original translation in the King James. So what do you think modern translations of the Bible will look like in the near future as translators try to get the Bible more in line with modern science? I can just see it now: “In the beginning, God set Darwinian Evolution in motion… and
    saw that it was good.” – New Universal Bible, 2020.

    • Bryan

      Just so I’m clear: Your basic argument is that since all of the various versions and translations, none of which you have verified the veracity of yourself (meaning there are scholars who don’t agree on the trustworthiness of some of the versions you’ve mentioned here such as the New World Translation), since all of these don’t agree 100% on the meaning of one particular passage, and the differences between these versions of this passage is absolutely minor, therefore the whole of the Bible is absolutely worthless. Again nevermind the fact that the meaning of the verse you’ve focused on hasn’t changed from version to version. The whole of the Bible, according to you, is absolutely worthless because of this one passage. Is there any scholar anywhere that actually supports this line of reasoning?
      By the way, in reference to the actual article, there is no change from Genesis to Revelation concerning the practice of homosexuality. It is forbidden explicitly all the way through.

      • Boris

        All I demonstrated was that English translations of the Bible have been undergoing change, a Hollywood makeover since English translations have existed. I don’t know what the Germans and the Mexicans or anybody else has done with their Bibles. I implied the Bible isn’t divinely inspired. That alone would not make it absolutely worthless. Even the fact that the Bible has been proved to be not even remotely historical doesn’t make it worthless. It’s worthless as a guide to life the way Christians use it. It is very helpful in other ways such as proving just how incredibly superstitious our stupid ancestors really were.

        • Bryan

          Do you speak King James era English? Neither does most of the rest of the world. The English language has changed over time so it follows that English translations of the Bible have been updated. To use that as a basis for saying the Bible is only good for proving our ancestors were superstitious is absurd.
          Having seen some of your proof that the Bible isn’t “remotely historical”, I’ll pass on getting references. It wasn’t convincing before and I doubt you have something new to show.

          • Boris

            “Do you speak …. To use that as a basis for saying the Bible is only good for proving our ancestors were superstitious is absurd.”
            That isn’t what I said. Read it again. I just said the English translations have been undergoing a Hollywood Makeover and that alone would not make it absolutely worthless.
            “Having seen some of your proof that the Bible isn’t “remotely historical”, I’ll pass on getting references. It wasn’t convincing before and I doubt you have something new to show.”
            Scientific evidence would exist for an escape of a large number of Jews from Egypt and 40 years of wandering in the desert. It does not. Physical evidence would exist for great battles as the Israelites captured the land of Canaan. It does not. Physical evidence should exist for the Davidic dynasty and Solomon’s temple. There is none. Historical evidence should exist for the extraordinary events reported in the Bible to have occurred at the supposed time of Jesus’ birth and death. It does not. It could be different, but it isn’t.

          • Chip Crawford

            I’m thinking of a good country preacher’s description of the type of total absurdities you just proffered: That is just ignorance gone to seed.

            Archeology is replete with proofs of Biblical history.

            Medical science affirms much as well.

            ROTFL

          • Boris

            Name ’em and claim ’em. What are these proofs of biblical history exactly? Historical fiction always mentions real historical places and even a few real people. That argument is not going to help you at all. Where is the archaeological evidence for angels and Satan and demons, the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel and the confusion of the languages? How about some evidence that camels were domesticated during the supposed time of Abraham. How about some archaeological evidence for this trial of Jesus, the crucifixion and this resurrection. Surely the events central to your religion can be verified scientifically. Or maybe not. If archaeology can verify claims made in the Bible how come it can’t tell us what year Jesus supposedly was born and what year he supposedly died? “Scholars” have to “calculate” those dates precisely because they haven’t got a shred of evidence Jesus ever existed in the first place. Yeah archaeology. Sure. Medicine. Do you kick your wife out of the house when she is unclean?

          • Chip Crawford

            bible-history[dot]com/archaeology/news/

            biblicalarchaeology[dot]org/

            Here are two that present first. I’m sure you are familiar with The Stream policy of not allowing urls, so one may share them by adding the “dot” in brackets or parentheses.

            Medical science confirmed in the last century that the blood begins to clot in a baby on the 8th day.
            Yet the Bible called for male baby circumcision on the 8th day centuries ago. The dietary laws have proven out, again, centuries later to be healthy oriented. On and on …

          • Boris

            Urging Caution: A Brief Comment on the So-Called ‘Joseph Coins’
            The history of Christian forgery and fakery is well documented Shroud Man.
            Dietary laws are human inventions as is circumcision. We know how they came about. It wasn’t magic. FAIL.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are totally dishonest. The Dead Sea Scrolls … all that bunco? You’ve shown yourself.

          • Boris

            What do the Dead Sea Scrolls prove exactly? I’m dishonest for posting what archaeologists have and have not discovered? Sure. Anybody who tells the truth about anything is immediately branded as dishonest by Bible thumpers.

          • Chip Crawford

            Science. You are a science denier in this area of biblical archeology. Do Wikipedia on the subject. Science Denier … You are busted, buddy. How dumb can anyone be and still breathe ?

          • Joseph Matthews

            What do you expect from supporters of perversion? they’re not the brightest bunch

          • Chip Crawford

            Liars; can’t spin it or control it, so boldface lie and deny. Must be exhausting.

          • Boris

            I will ask again. What do the Dead Sea scrolls prove exactly? That people copied texts? Or wrote them? There are lots of ancient Near Eastern texts from all over that area. What is it that makes these scrolls any different?

          • Chip Crawford

            Take a hike fakir. You’ve run your string with me.I don’t give my time to your ilk. May your soul be saved in the day of judgment.

          • Boris

            Man it never fails. When all the Bible thumper’s lies and nonsense are rejected they always, ALWAYS tell you their daddy is going to beat you up and burn you forever and ever and ever and ever, nanny, nanny boo boo. Christianity only appeals to the base human emotion of cowardice. Thanks for proving that again.

          • Jim Walker

            Well Boris, I was once like you. I hope one day, Truth will find you.

          • Boris

            You were never like me. I have a very good BS meter. You don’t.

          • Chip Crawford

            You refuse to come to the light because your deeds are evil. Restlessly, you thrash about trying to justify your sin and misalignment with God’s will and way. All the while you are missing the opportunity to know and walk with one who loves you more than you know is available. You are desperately trying to prove wrong what you know is true, hoping you can invalidate God’s reality. You can’t hit him so you try to hit his people. You miss every time, little man. Stop running.

          • Boris

            No, I know the darkness of religion is not light. I don’t have any sins I’m trying to justify. If God wants me to know something he’s more than welcome to do just that. I’m all ears. I don’t want to hit God because I don’t believe there is a God. Atheists don’t want to hit Christians. We say love the Christian, hate the Christianity.

          • Joseph Matthews

            You hate Christianity because it doesn’t take kindly to perversion? what exactly is wrong with Christianity?

          • Boris

            Where did I say anything about something you consider to be perversion? If I asked you what is wrong with Islam what would you say? That it is a false religion? That is my problem with Christianity.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Homosexuality is a perversion and Christianity makes more sense than your ape belief

          • Boris

            Christianity only appeals to cowards. It doesn’t make any sense.

          • Joseph Matthews

            It makes perfect sense. nothing leaves nothing, it takes a creator for something to exist. big bang and evolution is a fairy tale

          • Boris

            A Creator is something. So what did it take for it to exist? Yeah you’re an expert and you know better than all the biologists and cosmologists. There is something called the Dunning – Kruger effect. It explains why intellectual inferiors always think they know more than everybody else. Look it up.

          • Jim

            Proof?

          • Chip Crawford

            Open your heart, blind man, and God will touch your eyes so you can see.

          • Chip Crawford

            The Bible is a dead letter without the Holy Spirit to open it up to you. It’s not like any other book. You make yourself available to God and his spirit comes to your aid in your reach toward him. He opens the eyes of your understanding. It’s not hard to receive from God; you just have to do it his way. That’s your problem and most lost people – rebellion. You need to make peace with God. Stop arguing with him and yield to him. HIs truth, his word is precious, treasure. It’s hidden from the froward.

          • Boris

            “The Bible is a dead letter without the Holy Spirit to open it up to you.”
            I’m glad you said this. Think about this very carefully. What is really meant by this imbuing of the Holy Spirit is that unless one believes that every word of the Bible is true and the Word of God they will burn in hell for all eternity. Now if someone is actually gullible enough to believe that threat you can be sure they will twist their brain into a useless pretzel trying to believe nonsense they would never believe for a second if it were written in any other book. Again, Christianity only appeals to the base human emotion of cowardice. What makes you so angry and frustrated is that you knuckled under to the threats of OTHER PEOPLE and you can’t stand that the rest of us are simply much braver and much, much more rational than you are.

          • Chip Crawford

            The Bible does not say what you said. You left the rails with that. That’s a game. Stop. Not playing. You’re making up trash and assigning malign meanings that aren’t there. Buzz off; I’ve had enough of you at the moment.

          • Boris

            I didn’t say the Bible said how to read the Bible. Christian evangelists tell people that they must be imbued with the Holy Spirit before they can understand the Bible. You told me that. I just told you how and why that is really brainwashing. If a person reads the Bible without any preconceived notions about it, they are not going to believe it is the Word of god. We all know that.

          • Chip Crawford

            The Holy Spirit is in the earth. Jesus sent him before he left. Part of what he does is draw men to him. He is very good at what he does. He turns on lights. But he does not force. Openness is key. It is your move. God has done all he’s going to do concerning your salvation. He sent Jesus, who paid the price for you. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth. Now quit riding the brake.

          • Boris

            Jesus Christ never existed. Get off your knees you sniveling coward and act like a man for the first time in your miserable life. Coward.

          • Jim

            Sure it does. Walking on water, burning plants that talk, talking snakes, etc. makes perfect sense…..

          • Chip Crawford

            Sense knowledge is part of the physical makeup given us to contact and operate in this world. God is a spirit, and things progressed from dispensations on an old earth. He is supernatural, and man has that element in him as well. Read the letters, the main part of the Bible to the church, our age. But to be limited to what you can taste, feel, see, etc. is to be carnally minded. Even the soul with its mind, will and emotions is an expansion on that. But when Jesus is received as savior and lord, his spirit regenerates man’s dead spirit and he comes alive to God. You are dead to God, but you can change that in a nano second with a true heart and a simple prayer.

          • Jim

            No proof or evidence of the supernatural. No such things as demons or angels. Fables….nothing more

          • Chip Crawford

            Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with God and his family. A religion has been made out of it in some quarters. You could note the difference if you weren’t playing games.

          • Boris

            Like I said, God has not contacted me about any such relationship. If and when that happens any time soon I’ll let you know. Christianity is a religion by every definition of the word. If it wasn’t you Christians would not be hiding behind your religion when you defend bakers who don’t bake and florists who don’t do gay weddings or government employees who don’t serve homosexuals. You can’t have it both ways. Your supposed relationship with an invisible man in the sky, which is in no way a religion, might not be so readily accepted as an excuse to be a bigot by a court of law, huh?

          • Chip Crawford

            You’re the loser. When you get tired of losing … I seeyou trying to change the subject. No sale. Turn or burn. lol You know what to do. But you’re still climbing fool’s hill. I’ll ignore all such diversionary BS such as the above.

          • Boris

            I will happily ignore you as well.Go troll somebody else Loser.

          • Chip Crawford

            It’s good to get to you, Boris. You have it coming.

          • Boris

            You bible thumpers are the laughingstock of the entire planet. All you do is make me laugh. And marvel at the depths of human stupidity.

          • Chip Crawford

            Really? How nice for you. Unfortunately, you bore-us

          • Chip Crawford

            Matthew 13:15 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.

          • Boris

            Yes this is one of the Bible’s many defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. All religious texts are full of passages like this. They are written by men to get other men to follow them blindly. And so you do. Even at this late date.

          • Chip Crawford

            No, you the one who is blind. You view through a legalistic lens, and you are not honest about what is before you, as we’ve seen very clearly about you. Stop playing games and be real and you’ll find God and his word will become clear to you. It will be life instead of the death you experience because of your attitude toward God.

          • Boris

            I don’t have an attitude toward God. I have an attitude toward religion. If God wants to contact me he is welcome to do so.

          • Chip Crawford

            Who are you to reply against God oh little man. Romans 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

          • Boris

            Please I know the text of the Bible a whole lot better than you do. Just stop.

          • Chip Crawford

            Let it speak to you. God is calling you, speaking to you in many ways. He won’t send an email or an audible voice, except in a rare circumstance. He is speaking to you.

          • Boris

            The Bible screams mythology at me. But I will keep checking my Email and listening. God can talk to me whenever he wants.

          • Chip Crawford

            None so deaf as he who will not hear. You can hear him whenever you want. God is always transmitting. It’s your receiver that actually chooses not to pick up ,his signals. Denying science, whole cities and civilizations that have been dug and their findings is willful ignorance. Face facts, Boris.

          • Boris

            The fact is that Jesus Christ never existed. So cram it.

          • begroeg

            In due time my friend, in due time.

          • Chip Crawford

            The due time to hear from God is right now as his voice goes out to all. Wisdom cries in the streets, turn in here. Now is the acceptable day of salvation.

          • Mr.P

            ^^ so true^^ In due time, but it will be too late for Mr. Boris then.

          • Boris

            How would you know? You don’t.

          • bellfri

            Love is an attribute given to us by God. How can you say you feel it too? Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Surely you aren’t saying it traveled around the universe till it found humans?

          • Boris

            Love is NOT given to us by God and neither is marriage or anything else. Mothers have loved their young for obvious evolutionary reasons before humans ever existed. Pick up a science book, put down the comic book and learn something about the real world. There’s new book called Origin Story by David Christian. I haven’t read it but it looks really good. Get it. Read it. get back to me.

          • bellfri

            Seriously? In my experience, even hard core scientists hesitate to go beyond theory when trying to explain anything not verifiable. Existence of matter is verifiable, not the origin. So I doubt David’s book would clear up anything for me.

          • Boris

            Right scientists do not make dogmatic assertions. However you creationists do this all the time. We have no evidence that there was ever just nothing, that nothing at all existed. The universe expanded from something that already existed. There are several hypotheses about what caused the universe to expand and what the universe expanded from. The current consensus is that the universe expanded from a previous universe. When this universe finally expands to the point that even atoms decompose and all that exists is an energy field, the universe will have no real size and it should expand again do to vacuum fluctuations with another Big Bang. This could all be wrong. We don’t know. However we do know that creationist explanations for the universe all fail. And we CAN prove this. That’s what science does very well. It disproves things and what we have left is what we work with.

          • bellfri

            I can’t believe you really believe that.

          • Boris

            What scientists believe today the rest of the world believes tomorrow. Nothing you can do about it no mater how much you detest the intelligence other people have and you do not.

          • bellfri

            “However we do know that creationist explanations for the universe all fail”
            No more than your science fiction theories.

          • Boris

            Just because you’re not intelligent enough to understand scientific explanations doesn’t mean they are invalid. It just means that you and your opinions are invalid. Look up the Dunning – Kruger Effect. It explains why people of very low intelligence and no formal education believe they know more than all the experts in a particular field. That would be you. You’re as dumb as a rock. The Dunning – Kruger Effect also explains that intelligent people don’t realize how smart they are, they think almost everybody else is as smart as they are. So scientists often don’t realize that there a lot of people like you who just are not intelligent and educated enough to understand their findings.I could not live not being able to understand the world I live in the way you do. That isn’t even being alive.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are bold faced denying the public record concerning centuries of archeology of the ancient civilizations of biblical import. Then you are prevaricating and accusing the protest of such low life handling of your own travesty. This site does not support that kind of sleazebag communicating. There’s good news : Jesus died for scum like you. He’ll wash you white as snow and cause you to stand upright, just as if you never sinned. He excels in turning losers to winners.

          • Boris

            I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed. I went to sites you sent me to and didn’t find anything that supported your claims about the Bible’s supposed historicity. I asked what the Dead Sea scrolls proved and you flipped your lid. You people hate questions about your religion because YOU are not allowed to ask them.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are shuffling off the proof you already know is there. “You people” is it? You hate the truth, even facts that support the reality of God and his word. That’s just foolish. I’m sorry you’re not any smarter than that. God’s word tells me to walk away from someone when I find the truth is not in them. God won’t tiddly winks with you either. No games. I don’t have religion; it’s relationship. We can ask any questions we like. God has answered loads of my questions. Some of them take some growth to take in, some come right away. He’ll lead one to a teacher, verses, inner witness, hearing your pastor just start talking about something on your mind. God is fabulous. He invites us to ask of him. If any man lack wisdom, ask of me. You can’t bear sound doctrine, even facts trigger your lying streak. You’re like a bat that has to operate in the dark because you cannot bear the light. You fool no one, especially God. You’d be better off to stop playing the fool. The identity has a way of sticking.

          • Jim Walker

            Chip, let go and let God.

          • Chip Crawford

            Sometimes do answer a fool according to his folly; then sometimes do not. Proverbs

          • bellfri

            Unless one has had a personal encounter with God, one has to rely on faith. My faith is grounded in my religion of course, but also the evidence that I encounter physically on a daily basis.
            I cannot look at the simplest creation and think there is not a designer. NONE! I cannot look at the universe and it’s billions and billions of stars and their surroundings, the seeming precision of their movements, the ability to feel emotions by humans, even apparently by non humans, so much that there has to be some kind of deliberate blueprint behind them. Nothing comes from “nothing.”
            It is difficult to believe that this “God creator” cares about us. But what can other creation can compare to mankind? We are the ONLY creation that can determine our own destiny. Be careful what you determine for your own.

          • Boris

            I am so sick of you creationists saying that nothing comes from nothing. You creationists are the only ones saying the universe came from nothing. The universe as we know it expanded from something that already and always existed. Your lying cult leaders tell you that scientists say the universe came from nothing because they don’t want you to know the mass/energy that comprises the universe has always existed in one form or another. This eliminates the need for a Creator and of course your cult leaders don’t want you to know that. The design you see in Nature did not come from top down design. Nature designs itself from the bottom up, trial and error, by way of things like spontaneous symmetry breaking and natural selection. You would know this if you ever picked up a science book in your adult life. Clearly you have not. Who needs the brutality of reality when you can play pretend by reading stupid fairy tales? The only reason you think a Creator is necessary to explain the apparent design you see is because you are a complete scientific ignoramus. So answer this. If the universe is designed how come God had to use radiation as our only source of light and heat? Radiation is a deadly poison to humans and millions of people die from disease caused by sun exposure. If we try to travel to another planet the astronauts will be dead from radiation poison before the get to another planet. Given unlimited power I could have done a lot better. So either God is an idiot or more likely no God exists. Think about it. Oh that’s right. No thinking for yourself in Christianity.

          • bellfri

            My goodness. Calm down. Life will go on no matter what.
            As far as nothing NOT coming from nothing, what PROOF do you have it came from something that always was and always will be. Wait a minute. That’s GOD. You just can’t accept Him.

          • Chip Crawford

            Hi! I’ve heard some point out that God spoke the world into existence: God said … and God said …. Words are not nothing. The earth was created by God’s words. Just some thoughts.

          • Boris

            I have empirical observation that tells us that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. The burden of proof is on the creationist to prove that the universe came from nothing, that nothing can exist in reality and then to define what they mean by “nothing.” Hint: As soon as you give it properties it becomes something. Good luck. You creationists have never been able to accept the findings of science and this has been going on since before Copernicus and Galileo. Nothing has changed. You just can’t accept the findings of science.

          • Chip Crawford

            The earth is in a cursed state. God made it perfect, but Adam’s sin brought a curse on the earth as well as himself and Eve. We will have a new Heaven and a new earth. Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law, all those Leviticus type things (Deut. 28), but not the curse of the fall.

          • Boris

            I know these texts a whole lot better than you do. You are wasting your time. Jesus Christ never existed.

          • Chip Crawford

            You use the term “know” very loosely. Acquainted with or even familiar with would likely be more accurate. To really “know” the word like is available is based on the usage that Adam knew Eve. It means to have intimate knowledge of. The problem is not that you are so familiar with scriptural ‘text’ you call it, it is that you are so carnal, it is difficult to discuss it with you in any depth. Your childish grasp, your “milk of the word” level requires one to keep things on a very simplistic basis. Any depth or comparison with other verses and so forth gives you colic and you begin to spit it up.

          • Boris

            Childish grasp? You believe these fairy tales. It really can’t get anymore childish than believing fairy tales, especially tales that are allegories and were never meant to be taken literally anyway. I compare the Bible to what we know about the past. The Bible is not even remotely historical.

          • Chip Crawford

            From a proven Science Denier. You refuse the archeological record of Biblical site excavation. Conveniently, you ignore a plethora of validation to the sites and events of the Bible, especially the ancient ones.

          • Boris

            Evolution deniers do not get to call other people science deniers. All historical fiction mentions real places and sometimes even real people.
            Sometimes even real events. Just because the Bible mentions a few real places doesn’t mean that stories are not fictional. What event described in the Bible can be verified? Because outside of the Bible we have no witnesses at all to this supposed trial of Jesus or to the supposed crucifixion of Jesus or this supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not one from anywhere.

          • Chip Crawford

            Evolution is so foolish, with the missing link … You have to suspend disbelief to go for that. But no problem; makes sense to you. You are trying to score points with an argument to someone with an experience. You’ve come too late. I love God and his reality is lived out every day in my own personal life. He’s been with me in trouble, working out some very positive “medical improbabilities” in my own experience and with my Dad. He’s increased joy and new paths of peace. Our family was in a mainline denomination all the way back, both sides, but we met God one by one, and he’s turned us around. A wonderful song talks about all I had to offer him was brokenness and strife, but he made something beautiful of my life. You don’t have enough ugliness to throw shade on that. My surviving siblings continue to love God, raising children in his knowledge and seeing old, more negative patterns not repeated in them, like alcoholism. Gone. So much, good, so much thankfulness and a witness to many around us. These things don’t just happen. So sorry about your small, shabby little world you are so defensive concerning. I hope your happiness becomes true and solid the only way it can.

          • Boris

            “He’s been with me in trouble, working out some very positive “medical improbabilities” in my own experience and with my Dad.”
            Meanwhile about 30,000 starving children die from poverty related issues every 24 hours. The kind of arrogance it takes to believe that the supposed creator of the universe is helping you while he can’t be bothered to help millions of people who really need help is mind-boggling. Evolution has been taught in Christian colleges and universities for over a century. Evolution is the foundation of biology, immunology, medicine farming, pest management, fishery management. Science proves itself to be true by producing results. There’s no missing link. You’re getting lied to by creationists about science. You are the one who believes anyone who agrees with you and nobody else, ever. You are as brainwashed and poorly educated as anyone I have ever encountered. Just go away. You are as foolish as they come. Even for a creationist.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are a product of the devil’s lies, sadly. We send and go abroad and with those in our realm of influence. You don’t know what you are talking about. All you know is ugliness. There’s no joy or comfort in atheism. You just feed on pride and self justification. Much of the world has been raised by Christianity, and they always prosper. Communism and other Godless groups have crop failure year after year, which is spiritual, part of the curse. Yet Christianity is sown and harvested all the while underground when it must. Of course, God’s children should bear the fruit of his care. You’d downtread anything. It’s the fruit of your poisonous tree. Well, there’s more whenever you want something clean, fresh, good and real.

          • Boris

            I reject any and all human claims about all Gods. Nobody knows anymore than anybody else about the god question. You don’t know more than me and no one else does either. You’ve listened to other people and they have convinced you to believe some of the stupidest things humans have ever invented. Why you would listen to other people talk about things they nothing about is anybody’s guess. But that is dumb Dude. Really dumb.

          • Chip Crawford

            I know God, sir. And you do not. You’re lost as a goose, and you’ll bust Hell wide open when you die. It could be tonight. I am taught of the Lord, one spirit with him. Praise God.

          • Boris

            Christianity only appeals to the base human emotion of cowardice. Thanks for proving that to everybody once again. Coward. It preys on the widely held fears and superstitions of the ignorant and the only reason it survives is because the dead cannot come back and demand a refund.

          • Chip Crawford

            More grunting and grubbing. I’ve cast my pearls before swine.
            Actually, got too close … pig squeal …
            Then, having been discredited, you tritely trot out banal insults.
            You were out of steam to start with. This current fizzle is redundant.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Yet no series scholar would take that statement seriously.
            As for David’s dynasty we do have evidence for it.

            As for your arguments for regarding Jesus actually birth why would we have records for such a thing ? As Jesus was born to a low family.
            Also archeologists have to calculate other sorts of dates in history.

            As for textual changes; this happens through the process of textual criticism when texts have to be updated when new manuscripts are discovered and analysing the internal and external evidence to try and get back to the original script.

          • Boris

            Bible “scholarship” is a joke. Who would take up such a trivial pursuit? Someone who doesn’t want to work for a living, a lazy unthinking putz. These “scholars” don’t want a real job or do real research in which they would have to be precise, accurate and truthful. No they can just argue that the Bible is historical and then pretend they know what it’s all about. They haven’t got a clue and neither do you.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Really and you do ?!
            That’s quite an ad homonim attack directed at people who actually to understand history, various books of antiquities ( and it’s original context), the social world of that time etc.

          • Boris

            The people you are talking about do not do any kind of unbiased scientific study of the Bible. When they do we get people like Bart Ehrman and other critics. That’s what happens. Once someone actually questions the validity of the texts the entire bible unravels like a cheap sweater.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            And yet people like Bart Ehrman and others would very much disagree on the fact of Jesus not existing.

          • Boris

            On what basis? Ehrman has no more evidence than anyone else that Jesus existed, no special knowledge on the subject. However he’s made a lot of money based on telling his version of who he believes Jesus was. When it comes to making a living people can rationalize just about anything.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What do you mean by basis ?
            Would make that same argument for any other historical figure then ?

            Also what do you mean by your last sentence?

          • Boris

            By basis I mean evidence. Ehrman has written several books based on his particular beliefs about who Jesus really was. What’s he going to do? Admit he had it all wrong. This guy’s ego is not going to allow that. He’s not a smart guy. He’s part of the Tin Foil Hat Society. A group of losers that go to school to study nothing. Then they teach and preach nothing.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Really?!
            For a man who supposedly is “not a smart guy” you propped him up in your reply previously?!

            Also by “He’s part of the Tin Foil Hat Society” do you mean credentialed scholars and historians who take Jesus of Nazareth seriously ?!

          • Boris

            The methodology that the historicists use is seriously flawed, the perfect example of pseudoscience. Their contention is that because the New Testament mentions real places and a few real people with this supposed astounding accuracy that the whole thing must regarded as the most historically reliable document we have, at least from that period. That’s really convenient isn’t it? That allows these historicists to cherry pick the texts and of course they are then able to cast Jesus in whatever role their imagination or argument requires like itinerant rabbi, religious reformer, apocalyptic prophet, faith healer, whatever. Let’s strip away the miracles and Satan and find the historical Jesus. Except it’s a fool’s errand because we have no texts that talk about any historical Jesus but only magical, fantastical, miracle working, death defying Jesus. So this historical Jesus is an invention of this movement to find the historical Jesus and only survives because people like Bart Ehrman cannot admit to us or themselves that they ever worshiped or studied someone who never even existed.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “The methodology that the historicists use is seriously flawed, the perfect example of pseudoscience. ”
            How is the methodology that historians use flawed and a pseudoscience?

            “Their contention is that because the New Testament mentions real places and a few real people with this supposed astounding accuracy that the whole thing must regarded as the most historically reliable document we have, at least from that period. ”
            Historians don’t just throw out the New Testament documents because of its philosophical predictions.
            They treat it as ancient Greco-Roman antiques and historical forms of writings. They try to understand what it contains, they writing style of its literature and the context of itself in the time period it was formed when dealing with these documents much like any other documents.

            “That’s really convenient isn’t it?”
            What convenience ?

            “That allows these historicists to cherry pick the texts ”
            What cherry picking ? Also not that long ago you were prepping up historians like Bart Erhman now because they disagree with you on Jesus of Nazareth they must thrown down ?

            “and of course they are then able to cast Jesus in whatever role their imagination or argument requires like itinerant rabbi, religious reformer, apocalyptic prophet, faith healer, whatever. Let’s strip away the miracles and Satan and find the historical Jesus. ”
            Yes because that’s what many historians do when trying to find out who the historical person was or for any other historical persons.

            “Except it’s a fool’s errand because we have no texts that talk about any historical Jesus but only magical, fantastical, miracle working, death defying Jesus. ”
            Except we do have extrabiblical texts that talk of him.

            “So this historical Jesus is an invention of this movement to find the historical Jesus and only survives because people like Bart Ehrman cannot admit to us or themselves that they ever worshiped or studied someone who never even existed.”
            What invention? What do you mean by “people like Bart Ehrman cannot admit to us or themselves that they ever worshiped or studied” ? BART erhman is an agnostic. He is not the only secular historian who states Jesus of Nazareth existence.

          • Boris

            The whole historical Jesus argument is based on the claim that the New Testament is a reliable source for the life of Jesus Christ. Yet none of the events mentioned in the gospels can be verified. The gospels talk about Satan and angels and demons and heaven and hell. These are religious texts with a clear agenda that has nothing to do with facts or history. These gospels are not even remotely historical nor are they from the First or even Second Century. The earliest complete manuscripts we have are from the Fourth Century and we have no evidence that any existed before that time. Using the New Testament itself to prove Jesus existed is like using a Batman comic book to prove Batman exists. We would need a little more than that. And no, we do NOT have any reliable extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus. And what really nails the Jesus argument is that there isn’t a shred of evidence that any of the apostles existed either. No mentions of Paul preaching on Mars Hill or doing anything else. No mention of Peter bringing new doctrine to Rome. No mention of any apostle by anyone being martyred or doing anything else. If these people existed this could not be the case. However if the 12 represent the zodiac in the earlier versions of this solar myth like in Mark, then this exactly what we should expect. Again, people who believe Jesus existed think the New Testament is reliable. They could not be more stupid or wrong.

          • Chip Crawford

            Everything you say is false. You are the one devoid of substance and authenticity. You have the same spirit quotient as a dog – dead to God. You use the propaganda technique of the ignorant and bereft — that drumbeat repetition. You have no facts or substance, so you just repeat your lies over and over – sow doubt. It’s like the left’s use of Alinsky’s demonic screed- just find a spot you consider weak and niggle it, outrage by continued and total denial, putting everything down that’s presented. Work any doubt, anything not “proven;” call everything unproven. Scorn and scoff; keep working that place until you can get in, get the doubt in, then enlarge it. Over and over and over, wearing down – you hope. You are of your father, the devil, and there is no truth in him. You don’t realize the inner life of fullness and validation, being yourself earthly, sensual and devilish. You have nothing of Heaven and Heaven has nothing of you. You are like a blunt instrument that just coarsely tramples over precious and holy things. Humble yourself under the mighty hand of God and He will lift you up.

          • Boris

            Everything I said is true and if it were not you would have surely proved it so with facts. However Christians don’t have any facts to support their superstitions. None of the events mentioned in the gospels can be verified. Prove me wrong. Step up to the plate and back up your claims. Prove everything I said is false. Or STFU.

          • Chip Crawford

            Uh uh, bud. Not playing that game with you any more. You are a denier of all claims and proofs. You had your chance and you threw it back with me, with others. Go run in circles by yourself, which sadly you are. Hopefully, not throughout eternity without God. I don’t know what the initials stand for, but I know you, like all heathen, are capable of the low life as a resort. You just need to pass from unregenerate to regenerate, from darkness to the Light.

          • Boris

            “You are a denier of all claims and proofs.”
            Says the evolution denier. You’re hilarious and your lack of self awareness is astounding even for a Bible thumper. Denying evolution is even dumber than claiming the earth is flat, like the Bible says it is. Thanks for the laughs.

          • Chip Crawford

            Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

          • Boris

            The words of men written to get other men to follow them blindly. And so you do. You trust other humans who claimed to have information about God. I’d like to talk to you about a great land deal in Florida? Are you interested?

          • Chip Crawford

            Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in
            you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

          • Boris

            Look Dude. The Church wrote that garbage because they were competing with other cults and religions for converts, their money their political support and their young male children. Jesus Christ and his magic reindeer never existed.

          • Chip Crawford

            Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
            damned.

          • Carolyn Gray

            Joan of Arc was a coward? John the Baptist was a coward? Mother Theresa was a coward? Who would you call a hero? Yourself? You don’t even have your real name or a photo of yourself as your avatar. But Christians are the cowards. Bwa haha haha!

          • Boris

            All of you are afraid of things that don’t even exist. Bwa haha haha!

          • Carolyn Gray

            Please give an example. I am afraid of nothing (except spiders). So I’m not sure what you are referring to.

          • Jim Walker

            Show us proof that there is an earlier Leviticus version that promotes LGBTQ, if not please go in peace to sell your snake oil to the devil.

          • Boris

            Proof of what exactly? I didn’t mention Leviticus or LGBTQ.

          • Jim

            What? A baby’s blood will clot at birth. I work in the field of pediatrics. Try your nonsense on someone else.

          • Chip Crawford

            not to the degree needed for circumcision. They do develop as they go, you know. God knows all about that. We just learn as we go, unless of course, one is not too proud to acknowledge him and allow him to instruct.

          • Jim

            Wrong. Most circs are done on day two of life. Please don’t lecture me about medicine. Been in the field 21 yrs.

          • Chip Crawford

            Bogus. Medicine is not practiced in a field ……. You have so many issues ….

          • Jim

            Are you for real? Prove me wrong about what I posted mr wizard.

          • Jim

            What exactly does medical science affirm about the bible ?

          • candofeminist

            New data from evolutionary biology does NOT support the gradual evolving of species (evolution). This is NOT the outcome the researchers had hoped for.

          • Boris

            What is this “new data” Thumpofeminist?

          • Jim

            You’re on the train with the guy who says all species of animals showed up at the same time. Nonsense.

          • candofeminist

            Mmmm. No. I am merely informing you of the results of the latest research in evolutionary biology. Not even the researchers were happy with their findings. No one likes for their preconceived notions to be upended. No one is happy when their ox gets gored.

          • candofeminist

            No I am not on that train. I AM on the train that says species appear suddenly (not gradually) and once they appear the principles of RNA template/DNA replication confines them to the genetic distinctiveness that differentiates them from other species. So far no inter-species missing links.
            How, why or when this happened I don’t know. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else. Genetic experimentation by visiting aliens? Maybe. Evolution from a single cell? Looking less likely every day. God? That requires faith. Either you have it or you don’t.

          • Bryan

            I apologize for the hyperbole. Ok, so you claim the Bible is forged and faked. You claim that your Hollywood Makeover Theory is your explanation that proves this. Then you make a claim about natural life and show from one reference in one passage that it disagrees with what you claimed. Then you show a progression through history of a couple of Bible Translations of varying degrees of scholarly acceptance and you claim that these don’t agree but have been moving toward your original natural life claim. Then you assume that the author of the one verse you used didn’t understand the value of exercise and that because he didn’t know that and there are various animals that have been changed in a completely separate passage of the old testament (Isaiah 13), the Bible isn’t inspired and is therefore a forgery.
            I’ll grant you that you’ve completed your argument and basically came around to your original point in the end. The problem is in the middle. You used one passage from the whole of scripture that you claim disagrees with your position. But in the context of just the one sentence, this is shown false. Paul is claiming that godliness is a higher aim than physical fitness. He is clearly making a comparison. He is not claiming that physical fitness has no value. He is claiming that compared to godliness physical fitness is less valuable. Why would he try to demonstrate the value of godliness with something that has no or little value?
            Then you go on to prove your point by using several translations of the text from Greek through the NLT. Each translation makes the same case for the value of godliness in comparison to exercise. So the words have changed but the meaning of the passage has not. This is not a morphing of the text to change the meaning. It is an updating of the text to match the current language. You can’t support the claim that the Bible isn’t divinely inspired from this. Nor can you support the claim that the work is a forgery. You can make those claims but not with this passage and not using your arguments.

          • Boris

            I should have just said when the books of the Bible were written instead of that they were forged and faked because obviously you misunderstood that to mean that I was about to prove that point when that was not my intention. The article by Dr. Brown is about people trying to reinterpret ancient texts in a modern light to make them more acceptable to more people. My contention is that the English Bible has been undergoing changes since it has existed for that very reason. You can call it “updating the text to match current language” but upon close inspection we see they’ve also been updating the texts to match modern societal norms, widely accepted values and beliefs. I’m only talking about the English Bibles, not the supposedly divinely inspired Hebrew and Greek Bibles. As far as that goes, many Bible scholars agree that some of the epistles in the New Testament supposedly written by the apostle Paul are not. They’re forgeries. The same with Peter and some of the others. Whoever wrote the introduction to The Book of Daniel in my RSV Study Bible admits Daniel is a Second Century forgery written in two different languages by two different authors. This is also the case in the Bible commentaries I’ve seen. I take it from your last sentence you’re already familiar with this.

    • Patmos

      Wow, you typed all of that, apparently looking to prove you are a complete moron. Mission accomplished.

      • Boris

        No I wrote that at least a decade ago. I just cut and pasted it.

        • Noah

          Hey man, I didn’t read everything, but did read some of the exchanges you had with one of the other guys.

          Evolution has its own problems. Stephen Meyer says them much more eloquently than I can here, https [ :// ]stream [dot] org/god-need-darwin/ . Remove brackets and spaces. Some of them include body plan morphogenesis and the problem of gene regulatory networks. Listen specifically to 34:43 – 41:06. Play it several times; write what he says and consider if it’s true. Based on research he cites in the clip time I mentioned. Then there are other problems such as the Cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, etc. the whole video is interesting, but I thought you might find those most useful. His ultimate argument is that design in code, such as DNA or computer code, always comes from a designer.

          In terms of some of the other things you mentioned, history definitely speaks on some of them! The biggest one you mentioned – the life of Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. There are plenty of extra-biblical sources that verify his crucifixion, if nothing else about him. Examples would include Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, the Talmud, and Justin Martyr’s debate with Trypho the Jew. Most weren’t Christians, some hated Christianity; Josephus work has speculation for some tampering with Jesus identity, but none of them doubt Jesus. And our very history of the world was vastly shaped by a religion based on a historical man. As for the resurrection, there are plenty of arguments for that in the minimal facts theories you can look into on your own.

          As for the veracity of the Dead Sea scrolls and other documents, you’re correct that their verification doesn’t make them true. But we know beyond a shadow of a doubt what they said, and that our texts are accurate. The truth is where archaeology would come in – and while it can’t prove the stories are true, it can at least explain that the figures existed. For example, Sennacherib’s prism, the seal of Hezekiah, 18th Egyptian dynasty scarab’s in Khirbet et-Maqatir (AI in Bible), and the discovery of the Hittites show that they at least weren’t entirely made up, if nothing else. Credibility is lent to the stories by that alone, even if you explain away the miracles.

          And I think it’s important to remember that scientism simply can’t explain everything. You need history, human experience, etc. to explain how things are today. Science is amazing, but there are some areas it isn’t equipped to explain.

          • Boris

            Stephen Meyer is not a scientist and he knows absolutely nothing about science, especially evolution. I know a lot more than he does about this subject. Scientific literacy enables you to tell when someone else is full of it. Stephen Meyer is Number 276 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. If you want truthful information about this religious hoaxer that’s where you will find it. If I want information about science I’m going to get it from scientists, not from some religious charlatan like Meyer or you. I reject all claims about science coming from anyone who is not a scientist and I reject all claims about God from anyone who is not a God. The entries in Josephus and Tacitus have been shown to be forgeries. Look it up, you’re own Christian scholars admit it is not only a forgery it’s a very stupid forgery done by Eusebius. Origen knew the works of Josephus very well and he actually complained that there were no mentions of Jesus anywhere in the writings of Josephus. That’s how we know Eusebius is the forger, he produced the version of Josephus with the “golden paragraphs” in it. But suppose we say it could be authentic. It’s more than a half-century after the events it supposedly relates. That’s hearsay and not even first or second hand hearsay. That is not admissible evidence when you’re trying to say God took human form and came to Earth to found your particular religion. You’d have to do a lot better than that nut everything else you have is even later and just as questionable as Josephus. You creationist love to claim science can’t explain everything. That is just stupid. If there’s something science can’t explain, it’s not worth knowing anyway.

          • Noah

            There’s no reason to get angry or call me a charlatan, I didn’t attack you. As for Meyer, all of his arguments are based on scientific research. I doubt you watched the clip I sent, because it explicitly states some of the articles for that argument – which are from highly reliable, non-religious affiliated, non-believers. Also, I’m not a young-earth creationist if that’s what you’re inferring, and I’m not explaining away science. Science is good for things you can test scientifically; for example, you can test a chemical reaction using the scientific method. You can’t test if Alexander the Great actually lived and conquered the world with science. You can’t test if Stalin killed 50,000,000 people with science. You can’t test the origin of Mount Rushmore with science. You can’t test who killed Abraham Lincoln with science. You can’t test the exact nature of life’s origin with science. And you can’t test speciation with science. Which is precisely what you’re accusing me of doing; I’m not. I’m saying there are other sources of information that are required. You can make inferences about all of them from the history and evidence you have available. You can know how stone erodes, how it’s cut, or how a living origin functions, but you can’t test how what we have today came to be, because the exact circumstances of its origin aren’t here to test. You can test how organisms with homologous and analogous structures seem to have similar DNA, or similar environmental factors that could influence their appearance, but you can’t test if one species actually changed into another. Your belief of evolution is that it is set in stone, but really it’s a theory of how life came to be as it is today. And if you’d watched Meyer’s video, he talked about the conclusion of the top minds of the Neo-Darwinian theory at one of their most recent conferences and acknowledged that this time of evolution creates more problems than solutions. The problem is, people are so dogmatic in their views that they get angry when people say they’re wrong. You can say I’m wrong all you want, and I’m happy to look into the evidence – and have. But I simply shared a clip and ask you to watch 7 minutes of it and you go bananas! If you’re honest with yourself, you’d reject claims about God even if they were from God. If Jesus really was God, his words and actions demonstrated that, and even though he was the Messiah that was promised, all his people wanted was more miracles and proofs – refusing to acknowledge the sin in their hearts. That’s the problem we all have – our nature is sin. Your sin characterizes you, and all people that don’t have the righteousness from God. We deserve God’s wrath, but Jesus took it for us. He loves you. And He lives for you if you’re willing to repent and lose your life for Him. Follow Him. Anyways, thanks for sharing that about Josephus and Tacitus, I’ll have to look into them more. However, that doesn’t change the minimal facts argument, or the fact that the apostles existed (ex: Paul) and died for Christ, who they probably wouldn’t be concerned about if he didn’t exist. Not to mention that most of the world as we know it was in some way shaped by the impact of a non-existent carpenter.

          • Boris

            “…As for Meyer, all of his arguments are based on scientific research.”
            Research done by who exactly? Quote mining legitimate scientists to make it look like their findings argue against evolution is not doing research, it is lying, it is deception. And that is what the religious fanatics at the Discovery Institute do and its all the “research” they ever do. There are no peer-reviewed papers on the magic of Intelligent Design Magic. There’s no one doing any research on Intelligent Design Magic. There’s nothing to research and no progress to be made, that is unless your goal is to confuse an already scientifically ignorant American public. The ID Magic hoaxers have at least been good at that. They’ve certainly reeled you in. That’s because pseudoscience is the science of the ignorant and uneducated.
            “You can’t test if Stalin killed 50,000,000 people with science.”
            I’m glad you mentioned Joseph Stalin. Like Stephen Meyer and the other Discovery Institute hoaxers, Joseph Stalin thought Evolution by Natural Selection was some bourgeoisie Western philosophy. So the communists adopted a pseudoscience similar to Intelligent Design Magic and Stalin fired or jailed about 3000 evolutionary biologists. Stalin didn’t need them anymore because with Lysenkoism Stalin was convinced that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection.” This is a part of history the ID Magic promoters don’t want you to know about because over 20 million people starved to death because of the communists rejection of science, of evolution, and acceptance of pseudoscience. The same kind of pseudoscience promoted creationists like Stephen Meyer. Notice the modern day pseudoscience hoaxers aren’t even brave enough to tell us what their “science” could ever be used for. At least Tom Lysenko realized if you’re going to replace evolution with something it better produce some huge and immediate advances and benefits to humankind or it will be discarded when it fails. Lysenkoism failed just like Intelligent Design would fail if any country was foolish enough to mistake it for real science. No one ever will because this kind of scientific ignorance only exists in the United States where it’s always okay to be wrong. There’s a reason Ken Ham built his Ark park in this country. He knew he could never foment that kind of ignorance in his own country.
            “but you can’t test if one species actually changed into another.”
            Actually you can. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I’m using the horse as an example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. So there should be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus. The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on.
            “Your belief of evolution …. it’s riddled with problems.”
            Name ’em and claim ’em. What are these problems exactly? Because there’s an Index to creationist claims that answers them all. Look them up yourself. The only problems evolution has ever caused is with religion. Evolution is the foundation of all of the life sciences like biology, immunology, medicine, farming as the example of communist Russia shows very clearly, pest management and so on. Every Christian college and university that teaches life sciences teaches evolution and they have for over a century. How come we don’t hear or read about evolution being riddled with problems from the Christian academic community? How come the Christian universities aren’t promoting your Intelligent Design Magic as a viable alternative to evolution? Because Intelligent Design Magic not only isn’t science, it isn’t even a subject. It isn’t taught anywhere by anybody. There’s no research being done on it, no progress in science being made no nothing. Stephen Meyer has admitted on more than one occasion that he holds to a literal Adam and Eve. I heard him tell Hank Hanagraaf that myself. So Meyer is just another liar for Jesus.
            “The problem is, people are so dogmatic in their views that they get angry when people say they’re wrong.”
            Yeah, for the same reason people get mad at the flat earthers whose arguments are actually a lot better than yours and still very wrong. What you believe is no less absurd than what the flat earthers believe. That is why American creationists are the laughingstock of the entire world.

            “the apostles existed (ex: Paul) and died for Christ, who they probably wouldn’t be concerned about if he didn’t exist. Not to mention that most of the world as we know it was in some way shaped by the impact of a non-existent carpenter.”

            There’s no evidence from outside of the Bible that Paul or any of the apostles ever existed. No mention of this world traveling, church planting, miracle performing, Mars Hill preaching, philosopher debating, often arrested friend of the Caesars by any historians at any time. We have no evidence for Peter bringing new doctrine to Rome or any other disciples doing anything, including being martyred. I recognize this story as a solar myth that was reinvented by Christians. Like the rest of the Bible it isn’t even remotely historical and it was never meant to be. You can be sure of that.

          • Boris

            “…As for Meyer, all of his arguments are based on scientific research.”
            Research done by who exactly? Quote mining legitimate scientists to make it look like their findings argue against evolution is not doing research, it is lying, it is deception. And that is what the religious fanatics at the Discovery Institute do and its all the “research” they ever do. There are no peer-reviewed papers on the magic of Intelligent Design Magic. There’s no one doing any research on Intelligent Design Magic. There’s nothing to research and no progress to be made, that is unless your goal is to confuse an already scientifically ignorant American public. The ID Magic hoaxers have at least been good at that. They’ve certainly reeled you in. That’s because pseudoscience is the science of the ignorant and uneducated.
            “You can’t test if Stalin killed 50,000,000 people with science.”
            I’m glad you mentioned Joseph Stalin. Like Stephen Meyer and the other Discovery Institute hoaxers, Joseph Stalin thought Evolution by Natural Selection was some bourgeoisie Western philosophy. So the communists adopted a pseudoscience similar to Intelligent Design Magic and Stalin fired or jailed about 3000 evolutionary biologists. Stalin didn’t need them anymore because with Lysenkoism Stalin was convinced that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection.” This is a part of history the ID Magic promoters don’t want you to know about because over 20 million people starved to death because of the communists rejection of science, of evolution, and acceptance of pseudoscience. The same kind of pseudoscience promoted creationists like Stephen Meyer. Notice the modern day pseudoscience hoaxers aren’t even brave enough to tell us what their “science” could ever be used for. At least Tom Lysenko realized if you’re going to replace evolution with something it better produce some huge and immediate advances and benefits to humankind or it will be discarded when it fails. Lysenkoism failed just like Intelligent Design would fail if any country was foolish enough to mistake it for real science. No one ever will because this kind of scientific ignorance only exists in the United States where it’s always okay to be wrong. There’s a reason Ken Ham built his Ark park in this country. He knew he could never foment that kind of ignorance in his own country.
            “but you can’t test if one species actually changed into another.”
            Actually you can. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I’m using the horse as an example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. So there should be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus. The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on.
            “Your belief of evolution …. it’s riddled with problems.”
            Name ’em and claim ’em. What are these problems exactly? Because there’s an Index to creationist claims that answers them all. Look them up yourself. The only problems evolution has ever caused is with religion. Evolution is the foundation of all of the life sciences like biology, immunology, medicine, farming as the example of communist Russia shows very clearly, pest management and so on. Every Christian college and university that teaches life sciences teaches evolution and they have for over a century. How come we don’t hear or read about evolution being riddled with problems from the Christian academic community? How come the Christian universities aren’t promoting your Intelligent Design Magic as a viable alternative to evolution? Because Intelligent Design Magic not only isn’t science, it isn’t even a subject. It isn’t taught anywhere by anybody. There’s no research being done on it, no progress in science being made no nothing. Stephen Meyer has admitted on more than one occasion that he holds to a literal Adam and Eve. I heard him tell Hank Hanagraaf that myself. So Meyer is just another liar for Jesus.
            “The problem is, people are so dogmatic in their views that they get angry when people say they’re wrong.”
            Yeah, for the same reason people get mad at the flat earthers whose arguments are actually a lot better than yours and still very wrong. What you believe is no less absurd than what the flat earthers believe. That is why American creationists are the laughingstock of the entire world.

            “the apostles existed (ex: Paul) and died for Christ, who they probably wouldn’t be concerned about if he didn’t exist. Not to mention that most of the world as we know it was in some way shaped by the impact of a non-existent carpenter.”

            There’s no evidence from outside of the Bible that Paul or any of the apostles ever existed. No mention of this world traveling, church planting, miracle performing, Mars Hill preaching, philosopher debating, often arrested friend of the Caesars by any historians at any time. We have no evidence for Peter bringing new doctrine to Rome or any other disciples doing anything, including being martyred. I recognize this story as a solar myth that was reinvented by Christians. Like the rest of the Bible it isn’t even remotely historical and it was never meant to be. You can be sure of that.

          • Boris

            “Your belief of evolution …. it’s riddled with problems.”
            Name ’em and claim ’em. What are these problems exactly? Because there’s an Index to creationist claims that answers them all. Look them up yourself. The only problems evolution has ever caused is with religion. Evolution is the foundation of all of the life sciences like biology, immunology, medicine, farming as the example of communist Russia shows very clearly, pest management and so on. Every Christian college and university that teaches life sciences teaches evolution and they have for over a century. How come we don’t hear or read about evolution being riddled with problems from the Christian academic community? How come the Christian universities aren’t promoting your Intelligent Design Magic as a viable alternative to evolution? Because Intelligent Design Magic not only isn’t science, it isn’t even a subject. It isn’t taught anywhere by anybody. There’s no research being done on it, no progress in science being made no nothing. Stephen Meyer has admitted on more than one occasion that he holds to a literal Adam and Eve. I heard him tell Hank Hanagraaf that myself. So Meyer is just another liar for Jesus.
            “The problem is, people are so dogmatic in their views that they get angry when people say they’re wrong.”
            Yeah, for the same reason people get mad at the flat earthers whose arguments are actually a lot better than yours and still very wrong. What you believe is no less absurd than what the flat earthers believe. That is why American creationists are the laughingstock of the entire world.
            “the apostles existed (ex: Paul) and died for Christ, who they probably wouldn’t be concerned about if he didn’t exist. Not to mention that most of the world as we know it was in some way shaped by the impact of a non-existent carpenter.”
            There’s no evidence from outside of the Bible that Paul or any of the apostles ever existed. No mention of this world traveling, church planting, miracle performing, Mars Hill preaching, philosopher debating, often arrested friend of the Caesars by any historians at any time. We have no evidence for Peter bringing new doctrine to Rome or any other disciples doing anything, including being martyred. I recognize this story as a solar myth that was reinvented by Christians. Like the rest of the Bible it isn’t even remotely historical and it was never meant to be. You can be sure of that.

          • Boris

            “…As for Meyer, all of his arguments are based on scientific research.”
            Research done by who exactly? Quote mining legitimate scientists to make it look like their findings argue against evolution is not doing research, it is lying, it is deception. And that is what the religious fanatics at the Discovery Institute do and its all the “research” they ever do. There are no peer-reviewed papers on the magic of Intelligent Design Magic. There’s no one doing any research on Intelligent Design Magic. There’s nothing to research and no progress to be made, that is unless your goal is to confuse an already scientifically ignorant American public. The ID Magic hoaxers have at least been good at that. They’ve certainly reeled you in. That’s because pseudoscience is the science of the ignorant and uneducated.
            “You can’t test if Stalin killed 50,000,000 people with science.”
            I’m glad you mentioned Joseph Stalin. Like Stephen Meyer and the other Discovery Institute hoaxers, Joseph Stalin thought Evolution by Natural Selection was some bourgeoisie Western philosophy. So the communists adopted a pseudoscience similar to Intelligent Design Magic and Stalin fired or jailed about 3000 evolutionary biologists. Stalin didn’t need them anymore because with Lysenkoism Stalin was convinced that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection.” This is a part of history the ID Magic promoters don’t want you to know about because over 20 million people starved to death because of the communists rejection of science, of evolution, and acceptance of pseudoscience. The same kind of pseudoscience promoted creationists like Stephen Meyer. Notice the modern day pseudoscience hoaxers aren’t even brave enough to tell us what their “science” could ever be used for. At least Tom Lysenko realized if you’re going to replace evolution with something it better produce some huge and immediate advances and benefits to humankind or it will be discarded when it fails. Lysenkoism failed just like Intelligent Design would fail if any country was foolish enough to mistake it for real science. No one ever will because this kind of scientific ignorance only exists in the United States where it’s always okay to be wrong. There’s a reason Ken Ham built his Ark park in this country. He knew he could never foment that kind of ignorance in his own country.
            “but you can’t test if one species actually changed into another.”
            Actually you can. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I’m using the horse as an example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. So there should be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus. The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on.

          • johanes panjaitan

            Your basic argument is literally composed of whataboutism,ad hominems ,and complete historical ignorance.If you are willing to open Wikipedia even a bit then you will discover that some of Josephus’s reference to Jesus was authentic.

            And ‘if something cannot be explained by science..” can you prove that statement by science?Is there any scientific breakthrough that ensured empiricism as the only viable epistemological viewpoint?

          • Boris

            I had to read the works of Josephus when computers worked with key punch cards and reels of tape. Is that what college pukes do now? Use Wikipedia as a source for research papers? Name a breakthrough that did not come from science. Something that came from a “revelation” that made the world a better place.

          • johanes panjaitan

            -The development of Reason and Critical Theory.Literally every philosophy of knowledge (that makes science possible in the first place) is not,in itself,proven through scientific means.The Horse before the Cart friend.

            >”i read Josephus when computers used the same amount of electricity that sustain Detroit..”
            And? That means you understand Josephus himself wrote about James and Jesus in both Testimonium and Antiquae.

          • Boris

            “-The development of Reason and Critical Theory…..scientific means.The Horse before the Cart friend.”
            Oh sure, the wheel was invented by the great theorists of the day. The wheel before the cart my friend. Necessity is the mother of invention, not philosophy.
            “And? That means you understand Josephus himself wrote about James and Jesus in both Testimonium and Antiquae.”
            No I don’t. You did not address my objection that Origen knew nothing of any mentions of Jesus in the works of Josephus. You did not address the fact that these entries are more than 60 years removed from the events they supposedly describe. You did not address the objection that Eusebius is a known forger and we know he tampered with Josephus. If you don’t have any answers to those objections everything I said still stands.

      • Jim

        What a sweet christian sentiment

        • Joseph Matthews

          Pervert

          • Jim

            So sweet!

      • Timmy Seventy-five

        So that’s it? That’s ALL you have to offer, a pejorative, in place of an argument? I’m amazed and confounded that you were able to type all THAT. Such a dismal life you must lead, too ignorant to even begin to fathom the extent of your own ignorance, and intellectual bankruptcy.
        Run along, sonny boy, you bother me.

      • mikemiracle

        Granted that Boris is not a true Christian, and his disdain for scripture makes that clear.
        His ignorance of known miracles throughout time is his own shortcoming.

        The Bible is the word of God as delivered through faithful men and nothing can be said to change that.

        That being said, there have been bad translations through time and the discerning Christian rejects those. The NIV is most grievous as it removes the deity of Jesus in many places, but churches have placed them in their sanctuaries.

        So, the world sees this and specifically the U.S. citizens see this and assume that they have been vindicated in thinking that it is malleable, but it is only by the hands of unlearned, and unfaithful that it has suffered.

        There are a few versions that are valid in my mind, and not one of them starts with the word “New”.

        • Chip Crawford

          What are your selected versions? Thank you.

      • Jim

        You proved yourself to be one in far fewer sentences

  • Patmos

    As if lying weren’t enough, this guy Dershowitz wanted to try to rewrite God’s word, because sure why not? Leave it to the scumbags at The NY Times to publish such garbage.

  • Ken Abbott

    The approach taken by Dershowitz reminds me of the so-called quest for the historical Jesus. If you don’t like the real one, make up your own version!

    • Hmmm…

      Making God in your own image – how depressing

      • Howard

        It’s always done to attack the beliefs of others, never as an expression of real faith. Take, for example, the claims that buzzed around The DaVinci Code (which, full disclosure, I have never read; but that sadly does not mean I was spared from hearing about it). If indeed Jesus never claimed to be God, and actually taught some crap about “the divine feminine”, then (1) he was the worst teacher of all time, with his teachings either being immediately ignored or never understood at all, and (2) as nothing more than a man, he would not merit any particular attention anyhow, being an even less successful iteration of Simon bar Kochba. NO ONE would be willingly martyred for an unsuccessful proto-hippie.

        The Incarnate Son of God, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter!

  • Howard

    Perhaps he should work on a new version of Matthew 5:17-19 while he’s at it.

  • Mr. Covfefe

    He’ll have to rewrite parts of Roman’s, Corinthians and Timothy too. I guess the Apostle Paul was a homophobe. Hahaha!

  • candofeminist

    Put simply if your Christian then you cannot be a practicing homosexual and if your a practicing homosexual you cannot be a Christian. It’s a free country and a big country. Plenty of room for both parties to freely follow their conscience without stepping on each other’s toes. Jesus instructed Christians how to live in and yet remain separate from a Pagan society. The Christian Bible is what it is. Accept it or move on.

    • YogicCowboy

      I agree, with the stipulation that I reject the validity of the term, homosexual.

      • candofeminist

        Put simply, a single word that encompasses the entire gamut of LGBT.

  • YogicCowboy

    This article, like most, incondignly concedes the foundational premise of their fallacious propaganda: that there is such a thing as homosexuality.

    What transpires between two such men or two such women is not – repeat: not – sex. We must stop conceding moral, spiritual, physiological, or philosophical ammunition and territory to the enemy before even engaging them in the battlefield of ideas.

    There is no such thing as homosexuality; it is homoeroticism. What takes place between two such persons is a narcissistic fetishization of another human being. It is inherently dysfunctional and nonreproductive.

    True sex is binary, between one sexually mature male and one sexually mature female. Even if a woman had an erotic orgy with fifty men in one session, and became thereby pregnant, that child would have one, not fifty, fathers. Even if our depraved courts declared that an adult could legally have erotic relations with a sexually immature child, that could never morally or practically legitimize what transpires as genuine, natural sex.

    Neither homoeroticism nor polyamory nor pedophilia qualifies as a legitimate expression of authentic sex as designed by the Creator: All are distortions and perversions of Nature.

    • wiser2thegame

      very well stated. “that there is such a thing as homosexuality” There is no such thing as homosexuality; it is homoeroticism.

  • Jim Walker

    Be forewarned, the devil is using such people to rewrite the Bible so that the future generation will be reading the corrupted version. We know they won’t succeed but there will be gullible people who will believe these wolves in sheep skin.
    BORIS is one of them.

  • Joseph Matthews

    Jim and Boris – two perverts

  • Trilemma

    Jesus abolished Leviticus. There’s no need to create a new version.

    • Joseph Matthews

      So are you saying that Homosexuality is not a sin?

      • Trilemma

        Based solely on Leviticus, it’s no more a sin than wearing fabrics made from more than one material.

        • Joseph Matthews

          That was written was Israelites not for everyone but laws condemning homosexuality applies to everyone

          • Chip Crawford

            No kidding. God is not a flake; if he says something is an abomination; that does not change. It’s just a matter of his method of redemption from the Old to the New Covenant.

          • Trilemma

            God said eating certain foods is an abomination. Did that change?

          • Andrew Mason

            Have you forgotten Peter’s dream? Clearly it has changed.

          • AndRebecca

            Eating certain foods did change in the N.T., and it says so.

          • Trilemma

            Chip Crawford said that if God says something is an abomination that it doesn’t change.

          • Chip Crawford

            Unclean foods to clean food. Very different from homosexuality.

          • AndRebecca

            Chip is doing a great job answering questions here. I think he got carried away on this point. Many Jews still don’t eat pork, but Christians do and it did change.

          • Chip Crawford

            I replied to this 4 hours ago; just checked my post list and it’s there. Don’t know why it did not go on the site here. I searched and did not find it in another place. This is what I answered to T’s comment:

            “Unclean foods to clean food. Very different from homosexuality.”

            I’ve also commented to T on this abstraction he has with these niggling questions that he seems to be majoring in minors, that receiving Jesus is all in all, and one is at rest to trust him then. And you don’t care so much if at all. Answers come as you grow.

          • AndRebecca

            I was trying to take your side. You answered above and said “if he says something is an abomination; that does not change.” I have no idea what you wrote four hours ago, and don’t agree with some of your answers.

          • Chip Crawford

            That is a normal condition which works all around, but best harmonized with attempts to witness. What the unclean foods to clean foods line provided above is what I wrote before.

          • AndRebecca

            Oh, I won’t make the mistake of backing you up again.

          • Chip Crawford

            I’m not offended

          • AndRebecca

            I’m sure you are not.

          • Chip Crawford

            Yet you appear to be along the way and that surprises me.

          • AndRebecca

            Yes, if I stand up for someone, I don’t expect them to bite back. Did I misread what you said?

          • Chip Crawford

            No bite intended. Actually, I just advised of a previous post and included it and addressed the rest about T. It was prompted by what you omit of the rest of what you said. You mentioned my being carried away on the point. Perhaps I should have posted to T the correction of the point to which he referred.

          • AndRebecca

            In other words, I misunderstood you.

          • Chip Crawford

            I submitted data that I had clarified the point under review prompted by your stating I had gotten carried away on the statement T cited. Did you not type that part of your statement? And do you understand the clarification? That’s all.

          • AndRebecca

            Look, I’m not going to go back over what all you said, but at least one thing was wrong. That is, “if God said it is an abomination, it stands”…even though the N.T. says it doesn’t stand. I’m paraphrasing. Not everything in the O.T. applies today, but the Big Ten do, and many more do…I thought you sounded carried away, because you know better. We don’t go by old dietary laws, for instance.

          • Chip Crawford

            Please … Will you answer my questions or not?

          • AndRebecca

            Did I say you got carried away with your statement? Yes, I said that. I haven’t looked to see if you clarified anything. I will now.

          • Trilemma

            How do you know which commands were written for everyone and which ones weren’t?

          • Chip Crawford

            Bad question. Jesus fulfilled all the law. But as for Bible interpretation, one needs to see to whom the passage is written. God deals with three people groups: the Church of Jesus Christ, Israel and the nations (the world).

          • Trilemma

            Which parts of the Law deal with Christians; which parts deal with Israel; and which parts deal with the nations?

          • Chip Crawford

            The parts mentioned in the text before and after in each case.

          • Trilemma

            That doesn’t make any sense.

          • Chip Crawford

            The text will tell you to whom it refers. Read before and after, the chapter. You’ll see if God is dealing iwth Israel or the Church or the world. Learning the word is a process. It goes nowhere if you don’t try. It’s why we have a pastor and mentors, to ask questions, go to Bible studies where you can find things out.

          • Trilemma

            In that case, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 apply to Israel and not to Christians or the nations.

          • Andrew Mason

            Nope. Those rules continue into the NT. God hates sexual immorality, and homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the NT. By contrast – and please correct me if I’m overlooking something, the prohibition on sexual relations with animals is not repeated. Is homosexuality more unnatural than relations with animals?

          • Trilemma

            Of the 613 rules of the OT Law, which ones continue into the NT? Who decides?

          • AndRebecca

            Jesus stated that the O.T. applies to Christians. Jesus stated sexual immorality is out as a Christian.

          • Trilemma

            Do you wear fabrics made from two or more materials?

          • AndRebecca

            Have you read Romans 1:24-27? The truth of the Bible hasn’t changed, especially the stance against sexual immorality of every kind.

          • Trilemma

            Romans 1 addresses sexual relations in the context of idolatry.

          • AndRebecca

            So you think the Bible isn’t addressing Christians, but other people. So you think if you are a Christian, you can commit sexual sin all you want.

          • AndRebecca

            You know which commands are situational and which are not in part by common sense. And some by reading the Bible and some by listening to your pastor and elders in the church who know more about it and are able to teach you.

    • Chip Crawford

      Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

      • Trilemma

        Do you follow all 613 commands of the Old Testament Law?

        • Chip Crawford

          Jesus fulfilled it for me. Jesus’ redemptive work is all about substitution. He took our place, paid the price, bore the curse, on and on. The law was put in place until Jesus came to pay the price.

          • Trilemma

            Then a Christian who is homosexual doesn’t need to worry about Leviticus, right?

          • Joseph Matthews

            No, Leviticus still applies

          • Trilemma

            Does all of Leviticus still apply to everyone?

          • Joseph Matthews

            Homosexuality is still a sin today. nowhere in the Bible not even in the New Testament do we see God condoning homosexuality

          • Trilemma

            But what about Leviticus? Does all of Leviticus still apply to everyone?

          • Chip Crawford

            God still applies to everyone. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. When he said homosexuality was an abomination; that doesn’t change. When something big changes, he says so. Many NT scripture reveals that God said no more animal sacrifice, the law is fulfilled. It is a huge part of the Pauline revelation. Jesus is the fulfillment. Read it yourself, the flow of it.

          • Trilemma

            Do the commands concerning a woman suspected of adultery and the ordeal of the bitter water still apply? I don’t see anything in the New Testament changing that.

          • Chip Crawford

            Are you playing dumb or you actually that dumb? The spirit of the text should get through to you. You know the answer to all of that. That’s a practice, an ordinance. What is right and wrong is not. You know the difference.

          • Boris

            “The spirit of the text should get through to you.”
            Is that your excuse for cherry picking the Bible and obeying only the commands you want to?

          • Chip Crawford

            No. I’m not looking for a way out of anything. God is good and I want his instruction, his reproof, his correction, even his rebuke. I want more of him. Anything he shows me is for my benefit. Freedom is worth the simple confession to the father, the simple turning with the help he provides. All the trash of the past looks so empty and base because it has been replaced with what is real and satisfying. Christians don’t spend all their time trying to resist something they know was killing them, because they have been set free. We are now after God for himself and to grow and develop in him and his things.

          • Boris

            Set free. Sure. Freedom in the Bible also means something very different from our usual notion of being able to make choices. It compares more closely to being free of lice. In Romans 6:17-18 it is clear that the believer is no closer to having free will. Freedom simply means “available for subjection to God” instead of to sin. With these new definitions, it’s interesting to look at that old favorite, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Another potent example of manipulation of language is the use of love, which translates to obedience: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments…He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me” (John 14:15, 21).
            Just as truth is torn away from the realm of fact, love is removed from the realm of human affections. Human love is disparaged as frail and fickle, while agape – unselfish, altruistic love that is from God love – is held up as ideal. This can appeal greatly to converts disappointed with human relationships. Yet, it has little to do with what we usually think of love: affection, sharing thoughts and feelings, caring accepting, forgiving, empathizing touching listening, giving, respecting, helping, appreciating, supporting, and so on. It is a mental activity of adhering to a code. A Christian “loves” a sinner because God “loves” the sinner and one must follow suit. Love to the Evangelist is simply a willingness to put up with a sinner in order to obey the commission to preach the gospel. Thus the Christian can say, without noticing the inconsistency, “I love the sinner, but not the sin.” To the uninitiated, this is a strange kind of love that tries to divorce persons from their activities and then judges those activities with amazing ferocity. In this type of love, there is no desire to know or be known, which in our everyday understanding, underlies the condition of love. Normally the development of intimacy in human relations involves increasing levels of self-disclosure ans mutual acceptance based on equal standing. In contrast, the Christian preaching the gospel is by no means acting vulnerable, while working hard to find a vulnerable spot in the potential proselyte.

          • Chip Crawford

            John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
            32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
            33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
            34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
            35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
            36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

          • Boris

            Dude I had dour years of Ancient Greek, three at a private Christian college. While I did not study theology the New Testament and the writings of the Greek philosophers are the texts you use to learn this language. I doubt there is another person who has as much of New Testament committed to memory as I do. In it’s original language which is important because when you read the Greek and Jesus refers to the end of the age you realize he’s talking about the end of the astrological age. This is astrology based religion. Jesus is the sun and his disciples the zodiac. This is an allegory.

          • Chip Crawford

            The pride of your heart has deceived you.

          • Boris

            I have actually studied your religion. I can tell you everything that’s wrong with it. I cannot unlearn what I already know. And if you knew what I do you would dump your religion immediately. But you don’t. You want to remain ignorant. Go ahead.

          • Chip Crawford

            You know nothing of my “religion.” There are many variations and belief patterns. When someone does not agree with you, outside of a surfeit of deceptive pride, the automatic conclusion is not that they are ignorant and you fully informed. That does not even follow decent logic. There are Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Nazarenes, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Word of Faith and others. Their beliefs vary notably. I am sure there are at least two, perhaps three here of which you are almost fully not knowledgeable.

            For you to say you studied my religion and found it wanting is patent presumption on your part. You do not even know what strain of the above, if any, I have studied and follow.

          • Boris

            Your religion is a gross misinterpretation of mythology as history. Nobody inside a religion can figure out what the religion is really about and why it is false. Only we who have not drank the Kool Aid or who have been given the antidote are fit to make judgments about religions.
            That is just the harsh reality. There isn’t a Christian alive who knows anywhere near as much about their religion as a non-Christian who has studied it.

          • Chip Crawford

            Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
            20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
            21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
            22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

          • Boris

            This comes from a religious text. The purpose of all religious texts is to induce blind faith and trust. And the trust is in these texts themselves and the people who wrote them, not any God or personage who appears in these texts. These words are written by men in order to get other men to follow them blindly. And so you do. But I know what these texts are – brainwashing and I am not interested. Anybody can see what this brainwashing has done to you.

          • Chip Crawford

            2Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

            The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine inspiration.

            Go to any library you like, and find 66 books which match the characteristics of the 66 books in the Bible. You must choose 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, written on 3 different continents. However, they must share a common storyline, a common theme, and a common message, with no historical errors or contradictions.

            It contains a broad variety of genres: historical, narrative, epic, law, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, gospel, apocalyptic and letters. The authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen, doctors, kings, prophets, tax collectors and scholars. Most of these authors never knew one another personally.

          • Boris

            The first woman was not made from a rib. There was no flood, 900 year old people never existed, the whole world never spoke one language, we know how the various languages evolved and where they evolved. There was no Passover event. If every first born child and animal in Egypt all died on one night the Egyptians would know something about this don’t you think? You don’t think and you don’t question what your cult leaders tell you about the Bible. There was no Exodus, no wandering in the desert. Archaeologists can tell us about hunter-gatherers who lived in that area of the desert 30,000 years ago. But they have no evidence for the Israelites living there for 40 years only 3,000 years ago. There was no Conquest. Instead Egypt had a military presence in that area for 400 years and not a word of this is mentioned in the Bible. But we know it is true. There’s no evidence for the kingdoms of David and Solomon or Solomon’s Temple either. Yet the Bible says Solomon was famous and the richest of all the kings. No one ever heard of this person. The Book of Daniel has been shown by your own Christian scholars to be a Second Century forgery written by two different authors in two different languages. I could go on forever about the problems in he Bible. They are well-documented and by Christian scholars. The fact is that the Bible is not even remotely historical. None of the main characters from Adam to Jesus ever existed.

          • Chip Crawford

            You’ve just described your denial of anything that does not agree with you. You are ignorant and denying of anything about the spirit of the man, multitudes now with testimonies of changed lives. You just mock and throw cheap shots. Your pride is paramount, I’m sorry, and that is one of the most spiritually vulnerable positions there is. That you deny God himself is more than sad. You apparently have been with rather lackluster Christians or you are just that deluded and self appointed. You actually have made yourself above any common sense reason. The devil loves it, and there is one. His favorite is your position that he doesn’t exist. Easier for him to play gotcha for real. God has been described as the hound of Heaven, and he will follow your scent until you refuse him for the last viable moment. I’m sorry your Christian encounters, study and any education you have has been so heady and devoid of spirit life and power.

          • Boris

            I have known people who converted to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology and all of them give the exact same testimonies about how their lives changed for the better. You would never accept those testimonies as proof that their religions are true and the Gods they claim to experience are real but you expect other people to accept your testimonies from Christians that your religion is true and your God is the real God. That is religious arrogance gone into orbit. When you figure out why you reject the Gods of other religions maybe you will understand why other people reject your God.

          • Chip Crawford

            It’s just what you do — lie and deny. I’m sorry for you. I don’t believe your claims either. No one is happy with a false god and idols. There is one true God, the Father in Heaven, the God of the Bible, his inspired Word. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. All who’ve come before and after him are thieves and robbers. Yes, I am very narrow on that — and saved.

          • Boris

            Name one lie that I have told. Name it and claim it. You’re not saved because there is nothing to be saved from.

          • AndRebecca

            I’ve known people from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology who have converted to Christianity who have all stated their lives changed for the better. And the big plus, their souls are saved.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Except David and Solomon have both have been accepted by many in the scholarly community to ace existed.

            What evidence do you have that Daniel is from the second century and by whom ?

          • Boris

            The scholarly community accepts David and Solomon? The Tin Foil Hat Society accepts pretty much anything that would bolster their faith. These are faith heads, not people doing actual research or work.
            Have you read Daniel? It knows nothing of the Fifth Century and a lot about the time around 164 BC. That’s when it was compiled.

          • AndRebecca

            Would you point out the verses you are talking about? There must be a few particular ones you have memorized which you can share with us.

          • AndRebecca

            My, my. You are smarter than all the geniuses who have followed Christ through the ages and have written about their beliefs.

          • AndRebecca

            You’ve been on this site for weeks and haven’t said anything which would cause anyone to think Christianity has something wrong with it. There’s something wrong with you, for sure.

          • AndRebecca

            Pride goes before the fall.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            How is Jesus the sun ?

          • Boris

            Ever seen Zeitgeist? UTube it. The beginning of the movie lays it out fairly well. It has a few inaccuracies and makes some spurious claims but the general idea is spot on. Our ancestors worshiped the sun, moon and stars and turned them into gods and wrote stories about them. When you see 12 of something, 12 kings in Egypt, 12 tribes of Israel (Moses is also a sun god) 12 disciples these are not real people, they represent the zodiac. The Jesus story was written in the stars long before anyone ever heard of Jesus.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Have I seen something that was not done by credential scholars. It has a lot of inaccuracies and the the so called pre Jesus stories are not true see below
            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVOYpPpjYhTUHXycJrY6P2I

            Also how does the disciples represent the zodiac ?

            Also as I stated the credentials scholarly community does not take this seriously. Especially Jesus of Nazareth not existing.

          • Trilemma

            The Law is either abolished in its entirety or it still applies in its entirety. Christians like to rummage through the Old Testament Law and pick out the bits they can use to condemn people who do things they don’t like.

          • Chip Crawford

            No they don’t. The sin is already condemned. You have to repent of such to be free of it. If you deny it is sin, then you can’t be helped. It’s for freedom that the law came to point out what needed attention. Jesus fixed all that. Come to him. If you won’t, stop bellyaching. and don’t play with it.

          • AndRebecca

            Here’s a verse I believe in: Proverbs 14:1

          • Shaquille Harvey

            You do understand the differences between the ceremonial laws and the moral laws don’t you ?

            You do understand that homosexual acts are still condemned in the New Testament right ?!

          • Ken Abbott

            In my experience, Trilemma at least acts as if he/she doesn’t understand the differences. T’s very black and white on this subject–either you accept all of the law and adhere to all of its requirements, or you can ignore all of it, including the moral precepts. T has resisted my efforts to explain the distinction between the ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects of the OT law.

          • Trilemma

            The moral laws are the laws you want to still apply today. The ceremonial laws are the laws you don’t want to still apply today. Does the law that requires a woman and her rapist to marry still apply today? It’s a moral law.

            Heterosexual acts are still condemned in the New Testament too.

          • Chip Crawford

            Sorry, I get emails with new posts on articles where I have posted, as you likely do as well. I couldn’t resist responding to this entry in a series of other similar ones. It is harder to keep a straight face as you pose these questions. Interestingly, Tom Gilson has a new article out called Answering Mock Questions … Sorry, but yours seem very much in that line. No doubt, you will attest to being entirely sincere?

          • Trilemma

            Some Christians say Jesus did not abolish the OT Law and that it still applies. When asked about a specific law in the OT, they say it’s been abolished and doesn’t apply.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            No it’s understanding the differences of how the laws were applied and meant, the differences between the various law genres and what it means now and how it is applied under the new covenant.

            What women is required to marry her rapist ?

            Yes many heterosexual acts are condemned under the New Testament under as sexual sins.

          • Trilemma

            Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a woman and her rapist to get married.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            No. The maiden in the field is a consensual union. Look at the hebrew verbs and the parallel verse in exodus.

          • Trilemma

            The similar verse in Exodus is consensual. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the man seizes the woman and violates her. That’s rape. The Hebrew word translated “violated” is the exact same word used to describe what Amnon did to Tamar.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
            force: hebrew verb = וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־ (Chazaq)
            28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
            Lay hold: Hebrew verb = וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ (taphas)
            See those two DIFFERENT verbs? Those different verbs are JUXTAPOSED in the text.
            The maiden in verse 28 is not raped.
            Additionally, the parallel law in exodus describes a seduction.
            If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. – Exodus 22:16,17

          • Trilemma

            Joshua 8:8 – NASB: “Then it will be when you have seized the city, that you shall set the city on fire. You shall do it according to the word of the LORD. See, I have commanded you.”

            In this verse, the word translated “seized” is taphas, same as Deuteronomy 22:28. Does Joshua 8:8 sound consensual?

          • Ken Abbott

            T has difficulty distinguishing between the ceremonial, civic, and moral applications of the Law–he thinks this is an artificial construct and objects to anyone insisting (based on the entire counsel of Scripture and the work of Christ) on making the distinction. With T, it’s all or none. He refuses to see that the Law, reflecting as it does the character of a holy God, is good and remains a guide for thought and behavior but that Christians are no longer beholden to the Law for our justification. Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Law with respect to sin and imparts complete righteousness to the believer.

          • Chip Crawford

            I agree. Those seemingly splitting hairs may be sincere, but may be playing with it all. It has a way of seeming to be the latter. The counsel for seekers is to not insist that all such questions be answered, but to move toward the reality of God and what is clear. As we go along, often we find that we do not even care about the question and/or are willing to trust God with the issues and to let us know the answers after some more immediately relevant matters come into place.

          • Ken Abbott

            What I know for sure is that Christ has freed me from the burden of the Law but the Law remains a sure guide for the pursuit of personal holiness. I look to Christ as the only one who fulfilled the Law perfectly and, empowered by the Holy Spirit, model my thoughts and behavior on him. This is no drudgery, but a work of joy.

          • Chip Crawford

            I am speaking of the person with whom we are communicating, what is relevant to them in their current aspect.

          • Ken Abbott

            Gotcha. These complicated threads can be hard to follow. But perhaps the Spirit will intervene such that T can get something useful out of it all.

          • Trilemma

            According to gotquestions dot org, “The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies.”

          • Ken Abbott

            I see you’re still using one of your favorite tricks, T, that of selective quotation. Here’s two full paragraphs from the site that contain your snippet above:

            “In place of the Old Testament law, Christians are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us: “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). Now, this does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today. Many of the commands in the Old Testament law fall into the categories of “loving God” and “loving your neighbor.” The Old Testament law can be a good guidepost for knowing how to love God and knowing what goes into loving your neighbor. At the same time, to say that the Old Testament law applies to Christians today is incorrect. The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies. If Christ fulfilled some of it, such as the sacrificial system, He fulfilled all of it.

            “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshipping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9; Galatians 3:24). The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.”

          • Trilemma

            My claim concerning the Old Testament Law is that either all of it applies or none of it applies. That’s also what the gotquestions dot org site says. How does quoting two paragraphs change the fact that qotquestions dot org agrees with me?

          • Ken Abbott

            But “gotquestions dot org” does not agree with you, as is amply abundantly clear when the entire section is read. What you did is take the statement you like out of context and misapply it.

          • It seems your total case of ignorance of the Faith has exposed itself again.

            Certain parts of the Old Testament were made obsolete or abolished by the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and the creation of the New Covenant. This usually includes rituals and specific practices.

            The laws of what is right and what is wrong does not change as truth cannot change.

            I truly hope you are capable of understanding such a complex idea. It will do you wonders if you ever grow up one day.

          • Trilemma

            The Old Testament law says it’s wrong to wear fabric made of two types of materials. What is wrong cannot change as truth cannot change.

          • That is a ritualistic practice abolished with a deeper meaning that is still here.

            Hemp is good for summer clothes as it breathes, but will freeze you to death in winter. Wool is good for winter but will kill you in summer.

            Making clothes of both is “pragmatic” but will not protect you from any season.

            Therefore it is to remind you that “pragmatism” kills. Not to mention it still will do just that if you were to live in the wilderness.

          • Trilemma

            The Old Testament says it’s wrong to bow down in front of a graven image. That is also then a ritualistic practice that must have been abolished.

          • In front of an image of a demon? The protestants do that daily on the search for money.

            That is also not one of the commandments, luther took out “Do not take the Lord’s Name in vain” because he did so regularly. The German government wanted their brainwashed to destroy the beauty and art of the Church as all totalitarian regimes rely on hopelessness.

          • Ken Abbott

            You really should stop doing this (selective quotation). It’s intellectually dishonest.

          • Trilemma

            Is it right do disobey God because you call some of his commands a practice or an ordinance?

          • Chip Crawford

            These questions don’t matter and are not the point. You don’t want to be caught up in majoring on minors, do you? The Redeemer, Savior is a Person and the one you should seek to know. Thankfully, he is good. The questions have a way of getting answered inside the door, and most of them you will not care about having met him. Answers come along.

          • sprimo2

            Different dispensations, Leviticus is in the dispensation of Law, after the Resurrection we are in the dispensation of Grace, Leviticus still applies but the penalties are not applied by men but by God at the Judgement

          • Trilemma

            So, at the Judgment, what will the punishment be for wearing clothes made from two materials, trimming one’s sideburns, or getting tattoos?

          • Chip Crawford

            At the judgment, how do you plead? If you plead JESUS, you will enter in with him. Ifyou plead yourself, you won’t. Christians do not go to the white throne judgment. When we took Jesus as our redeemer, savior, we took his deliverance and purchase of our entrance. There will be a works review. What we did for God will stand. The things we did for pride, etc. will be burned. It has to do with rewards.

          • Trilemma

            So, a same sex married Christian who pleads Jesus will enter Heaven?

          • Chip Crawford

            The blood of Jesus will cleanse all who call on him from wanting him. No, you can’t use God. He knows. He has mercy and long suffering, but a chump, he is not. He’ll extend great love always, but the claims of righteousness are only satisfied with coming to him for him, not to cut current “losses” only to continue in sin and death. Heaven wouldn’t be Heaven without God’s judgment having been exercised against all unrighteousness.

      • bellfri

        To fulfill the appearance of a redeemer maybe?

        • Chip Crawford

          To fulfill its requirements in himself so we don’t have to. He paid the price, took the curse so we don’t have to. He shed his own blood for our redemption. Now it is available in him. However, what is purchased by grace as our salvation, must be accessed by faith. We are told to believe on the Lord, his sacrifice on our behalf, and say with our mouth.

    • Andrew Mason

      Yet elements of Leviticus are directly paralleled by NT passages e.g. Romans 1, and other passages speak more generally. If Leviticus for instance doesn’t largely define sexual immorality, what does? If we can’t look to the OT to define it how can we know what God considers it to be?

      • Trilemma

        If Leviticus parallels the NT then Leviticus is not needed. Is it immoral to wear fabrics made from two materials?

        • Andrew Mason

          Since this overlaps with your other response I’ll just do the one reply.

          No fabrics with 2 materials is like prohibited OT food – something repealed in the NT. This doesn’t mean Leviticus isn’t needed – those parts that no longer hold are useful in understanding God, Israel and history, but other sections underpin NT teachings.

          613 rules of OT Law? This number appears to be the idea of one medieval philosopher and rather controversial at that. Assuming we were to accept that figure, and those things deemed laws as such, those laws explicitly stated in the NT e.g. regarding homosexuality would continue. Those referenced but not explicitly detailed should likewise continue. I previously referenced sexual immorality, but what is that? The NT generally doesn’t specify how that term is to be defined, yet the OT provides some clear boundaries. If you ignore those how can you define it in absolute terms? Some rules will obviously not continue e.g. a listing of your 613 rules states marrying non-Jews is forbidden, but that would mean Gentiles are prohibited from marrying, which is obviously absurd, and contrary to what Scripture teaches. On the other hand interfaith marriages are still banned, so partially it depends on how the 613 laws are defined. Since OT includes laws (and commands) for Israel, these obviously do not an cannot apply to our society. Similarly laws which apply under specific situations e.g. Nazarites, are not universally applicable. Laws which are morality based by contrast are – good and evil will always be good and evil. As for who decides, at the basic level the Bible dictates which laws continue and which don’t. If you don’t accept what the Bible teaches then you’ll obviously disagree. And where teaching is ambiguous debate will exist, as it will where people refuse to accept what Scripture clearly states.

          • Trilemma

            Where in the New Testament was the prohibition against fabrics with two materials repealed?

            You said, “Since OT includes laws (and commands) for Israel, these obviously do not an cannot apply to our society.” The whole Old Testament was written for Israel so none of it can apply to our society.

            You say that laws which are morality based still apply. Is it morally right to disobey God when he commands you to do something?

    • Ken Abbott

      Okay, that’s blatantly wrong. “‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.'”

      • Trilemma

        Do you obey all 613 commandments of the Old Testament Law?

        • Ken Abbott

          I don’t have to, T, not to be justified before God and have my sins forgiven. Christ has done it all. All to him I owe. It remains for me to cooperate with the Holy Spirit to conform me to the image of Christ, whose character reflects the holiness of God’s law since the law reflects his own character.

          • Trilemma

            Jesus said that if you love him you’ll obey his commandments.

          • Ken Abbott

            To the extent that I can, and I am far from perfect, I try to obey his moral precepts. And in him I have fulfilled the law in its entirety. But I take comfort in the fact that he was accused of being a lawbreaker by the self-righteous legalists of his day.

          • Chip Crawford

            Of course, in the New Covenant, we have only one commandment – the royal law of love. If one walks in love, the 10 Commandments are kept. You can’t murder, covet, steal, dishonor and so forth if you love. Love fulfills. Jesus took care of ordinances and customs and necessities to atone for sin with animal sacrifice, etc. To walk in the spirit, one obeys one’s conscience. 1 John 1:9 is our maintenance for our missteps, sins. We come to God on the basis of the blood of Jesus, confess our sins and go free. A disciple is ever learning and growing in the word, God’s ministry gifts of teaching and corporate worship. The occasions of sinning and falling short of the glory become greatly diminished in repetition as we walk with the Lord. there’s a lot of habit changing and fixing at the beginning, but grace brings us up into growth and wisdom in walking and relating in this world.

          • Trilemma

            Do you abstain from eating detestable foods? Do you abstain from wearing fabrics made from multiple materials? Do you keep the Sabbath by abstaining from working on Saturday; abstaining from shopping on Saturday; abstaining from cooking on Saturday; and abstaining from traveling on Saturday?

          • Ken Abbott

            Don’t have to, T. All of those are types and shadows, ceremonial aspects of the Law that delineated the people of Israel from their pagan neighbors and made them holy or set apart. Christ is my holiness. In him I have perfect righteousness and am freed from the burden of the ceremonial law. Also, the Christian Sabbath is Resurrection Day (Sunday)–it was changed by the church as early as the book of Acts.

          • Trilemma

            If you don’t have to obey the OT Law then it has been abolished. The church did not change the Sabbath to Sunday. The early Christians were Jews. They would have stayed home on Saturday to keep the Sabbath. Then on Sunday they were free to travel to worship with other Christians.

          • Ken Abbott

            Not abolished, T, fulfilled. Fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Only in him do we have freedom from the burden of the law. Outside of Christ, the law remains. As

          • Trilemma

            If you have freedom from the burden of the law then the law is abolished. However, the law never applied to gentiles.

            I agree the church worshiped on Sunday from the very beginning. That was so the Jewish Christians could keep the Sabbath.

          • Ken Abbott

            Fulfilled, T, not abolished. As to your point regarding the Gentiles, please explain Paul’s point in Romans 2:12-16. You are correct that the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law never applied to the Gentiles, but the moral law of God is universal in its application. All have sinned, T, and fallen short of the glory of God.

            Regarding your second point on the keeping of the Sabbath by Jewish Christians–source, please?

          • Trilemma

            Ephesians 2:15 says the law has been abolished. Gentiles were not under the law but under a law unto themselves.

            From Encyclopedia Britannica: Jewish Christians probably kept the sabbath at the synagogue, then joined their Gentile fellow believers for Christian worship after the close of the sabbath at sundown, either in the evening or early Sunday morning.

          • Ken Abbott

            1. Uh huh. And what, again, is the context of Ephesians 2:15? And what of Romans 3, written by the same human author? Does that shed any light on your interpretation of Ephesians 2:15.

            2. “Probably.” Supposition without proof. Speculation. Not exactly something solid upon which to take a doctrinal stand.

          • Trilemma

            Romans 3 is consistent with the law having been abolished.

            The New International Encyclopedia says the same thing without saying probably.

            If the moral laws of the Old Testament still apply then that means the moral law that requires a woman to marry her rapist still applies (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

          • Ken Abbott

            1. Romans 3:29-31: “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” You can’t uphold the law and abolish the law, T. And you still haven’t answered my question regarding the interpretation of Ephesians 2:15 within its full context. Your problem here is that you want to cherry-pick a verse to support your (wrong) idea, seemingly having no concern for why Paul wrote what he did to the Ephesians.

            2. How do you consider that the law that requires a rapist to marry the virginal woman he violated (prejudicially you turn this around) is part of the moral code rather than the civil code of Israel? Deuteronomy 22 is concerned with case law, having to do with matters of criminality or governing aspects of everyday life (with some of the holiness code woven in). Evidently you learned nothing from our previous discussion on this issue.

          • Chip Crawford

            He’d got so many of his farces going here and likely other sites that he gets mixed up on who said what to him. Not that he cares anything about what anyone else says. It’s just a single issue twit he’s after each time. Talk about an idle pursuit … Sad that he’s missing a fuller life God has for him.

          • Jim

            Do you complain about every single person with whom you disagree? smh/

          • Chip Crawford

            Sad for you too

          • Trilemma

            The context of Ephesians 2:15 doesn’t change the fact it says the law has been abolished. There are plenty of articles on the internet that explain how Romans 3:31 does not contradict that. Search Christian Courier Romans 3:31 to read one of them.

            How did I turn Deuteronomy 22:29 around? It says the woman shall become his wife. If Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is case law then so is Leviticus 20:13.

  • longtermconservative

    I guess “stoning” was a term he could not comprehend?? It is not reserved for God’s favor, but judgment, in the OT. But, he has an agenda, even if it makes him sound like Willy Wonky or a worker in the Chocolate Factory provided the “insight” to create what was not written…. Good grief.

  • Nightmare

    There is no sin when the law is engraved on ones heart. SHUN ICKY

  • Stephen D

    I’m not too sure why this site can’t restrict a lot of the anti-Christian posts. It seems to me that most of argument taking place below is of no value. I cannot see the point of the site hosting comments that have nothing to say except to attack and ridicule Christianity.
    I was going to post a serious comment on this article, but given the general drift of the most recent of the 200-odd comments below I’d say it is pretty pointless me posting anything.

    • Chip Crawford

      Boneheaded dopes need to hear truth. We practice on them. 🙂 Be obedient. Share what the Lord has given you. We need your refreshing. The moderators will not let them take over. Jesus was patient with us.

    • bellfri

      I find it instructive to read the different view points of everyone. Anti-Christians will always be with us and the responses by believers to their many times gross posts may change the heart of some. Even saving one soul is worth it to me.

      • Chip Crawford

        Do you read for your own instruction only. How about posting a response now and then?

        • bellfri

          I do. What do you call what I just did?

          • Chip Crawford

            general comment; that didn’t address them or their concerns

          • bellfri

            What concerns?

          • Chip Crawford

            Uh, the questions they have; the skewed perspective they present, that they are clearly lost … their obvious need for God and his truth

          • bellfri

            My MO is prayer mostly unless I feel I can say something useful to the poster. I never pretended to be able to interpret a Bible that has not been interpreted without disagreement among the “experts” in thousands of years. OK?

          • Chip Crawford

            It’s not up to me. However, sharing some of your own life and testimony goes a long way. But, true, we are called in different areas and should go with a prompt on outreach. However, the disagreement about interpretation should not be allowed to stop anyone sharing the light they have. You pray, great. But, sorry, saying “what concerns” is concerning …

          • Jim

            When you become the mod, we’ll care what you have to say but until then, try managing your own life.

          • Chip Crawford

            they respond to our flagging inappropriate content; we are all patient with you et al

          • Jim

            Flag away. I’ve posted zero inappropriate anything. Sad that you’re not thicker skinned. You seem offended by anything outside of your own little narrative.

          • Chip Crawford

            Again, at present, we cannot credit your discerning opinionating as definitive …

          • Jim

            Lol!

  • Max Kennedy

    The story of Sodom – SODOMY – where the entire city of Sodom tried to gang rape the angels of the Lord, was well before the laws of mosses.

  • Billy

    I’m pretty sure mr Dershowitz is Jewish, which means he doesn’t believe in Jesus the Christ, so it’s just another jew trying to justify multiculturalism!

  • Chip Crawford

    ****************************NOTICE****************************
    As many of you know, BORIS, who frequents these pages with much insistence on Science, Science, Science as proof …
    IS ACTUALLY A SCIENCE DENIER! He actually schloffs off centuries of archeological digs of ancient Bible sites … and rebelliously holds to the claim that there is not a scintilla of evidence for any place or event mentioned in the Bible.

    Do not allow him to demand proof or Science any more: He was presented it and claimed it proved nothing, nope, nothing to see here. Of course, we know all lost people are blind. Pray for the guy if you are not already, which I am sure some do.

    • Jim

      What are you 11 or 12? The only science deniers here are you and your ilk. You are sad.

      • P-38 Lightening

        What do you fear with all the name calling??

        • Jim

          Nothing to fear. Ol chippy likes to try moderating the forum. Childish at best.

    • Chip Crawford

      Here’s Boris’ post on the subject. Cites were produced. Says they prove nothing. The guy who puts it all on Science denies biblical archeology, of public record since records were kept.

      “Name ’em and claim ’em. What are these proofs of biblical history
      exactly? Historical fiction always mentions real historical places and
      even a few real people. That argument is not going to help you at all.
      Where is the archaeological evidence for angels and Satan and demons,
      the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel and the confusion of the
      languages? How about some evidence that camels were domesticated during
      the supposed time of Abraham. How about some archaeological evidence for
      this trial of Jesus, the crucifixion and this resurrection. Surely the
      events central to your religion can be verified scientifically. Or maybe
      not. If archaeology can verify claims made in the Bible how come it
      can’t tell us what year Jesus supposedly was born and what year he
      supposedly died? “Scholars” have to “calculate” those dates precisely
      because they haven’t got a shred of evidence Jesus ever existed in the
      first place. Yeah archaeology. Sure”

      • Ken Abbott

        Boris seems confused as to the application of the scientific method. Observation generates hypotheses, which are then tested in highly-controlled circumstances intended to minimize variables, conclusions are drawn, and more hypotheses are generated and tested. How can a scientist study an historical event (by its very nature unreproducible) by observation and experimentation? What scientific evidence do we have for the birth and death dates of most people who have ever existed?

        There was a fascinating documentary on the National Geographic channel a couple of weeks ago examining the recent study of the tomb of Christ in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The conclusion is that underneath the protective stone slabs (the earliest placed sometime in the 4th century) is the surface of a rock tomb that meets historical criteria for an early 1st century tomb. Does this conclusively prove it to the be tomb of Christ? No, but it sure enhances the plausibility of longstanding claims for this designation.

        • Chip Crawford

          You’ve given a suggestive but inconclusive example. There are obvious ones. Are you aware of the Jericho digs? Many others in the exact locations, marked details fitting the Biblical descriptions. Do you see a difficulty in applying the scientific method in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

          • Ken Abbott

            Oh, I’m well aware of the validity of archaeology for assessing the historical/geological evidence and am pleasantly unsurprised that finds keep affirming the biblical record. Nice–if unnecessary, ultimately–to have the corroboration. On the matter of the DSS, are you asking me about their study as to methods of dating and whatnot?

          • Chip Crawford

            While such evidence is not necessary to you and me, it is part of the evidentiary record many esteem. What do you see as the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls find? What did it change in the documentation of validity of old texts – again, not to you and me? Thanks

          • Ken Abbott

            The find established at least two things: the antiquity of the material (they pushed the dates of the earliest copies centuries closer to their original composition, which in textual criticism is hugely important) and the essential integrity of the text, demonstrated to have been preserved with exacting precision.

  • mackykam

    the reason for biblical prohibition against same sex was that this was commonly practiced in pagan temples as religious rites. As was religiously sanctioned harlotry. all pagan rites were anathema to the Jewish religion. so much for those vestal virgins, whose remnant vestiges are today’s catholic nuns.

  • wdpatriot

    @Boris, and others. Have any of you researched the direct translation from Greek of 1 Timothy 4:8? This is what the Mounce Interlinear Bible does. It clarifies many of the “errors’, a term not precise I believe, of translations by going to the Greek wording. I find this very clear on so many questions other state. I am not a Greek scholar, and at 64 years of age have only started to study and understand some of the complicated issues of that language, however it makes these points as made, pointless.
    There is scripture about unbelievers being blind to the truth in scripture. That is not our problem to solve, we are only to preach the Gospel message of the salvation of Jesus the Messiah to them today. Using old testament law is actually futile to interpret the New Testament, or the New Covenant of God with mankind. Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament was a scholarly man who hated Christianity in his and it’s infancy. But the road to Damascus changed him completely!
    Paul made an astonishing statement about Christ to
    the entirety of the Christian faith: “And I, brethren, when I came to
    you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to
    you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among
    you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1-2).
    Paul was a man who had the equivalent of two Ph.D.s in theology by the
    time he was 21 years of age, a man who wrote with great insight on the
    whole scope of theology. Nevertheless, he said that the focal point of
    his teaching, preaching, and ministry among the Corinthians was simply
    “Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
    All of that as basis for this. Look to the original texts wherever possible to understand what was written and what is true. Is homosexuality denounced in scripture? Absolutely, in old and new covenants. Yet to argue with those who do not know the miracles of the cross of Christ it is futile UNLESS we preach and teach Christ and him crucified first. Even more importantly showing the proofs of historians from the 1st century who wrote on the events as the happened is beneficial, for none of us were there during those times, so their accounts are what we have as historical showing.

  • Dan

    I would be interested to know if this Dershowitz, is closely related to Alan Dershowits ?

  • Ken Abbott

    R. Albert Mohler has written a good article on the Dershowitz claim that stands alongside Dr. Brown’s article here. I can’t provide a link, but interested persons may find it easily enough at Dr. Mohler’s web site.

    • Chip Crawford

      albertmohler[dot]com/2018/07/23/leviticus-new-york-times-whats-real-story/

      • Ken Abbott

        Thanks. Guess you have the right technique figured out to get past the anti-link restrictions.

        • Chip Crawford

          Thank you for the info on the article. I very much appreciate Dr. Mohler. Learned from others to leave out the “.” and put in (dot) or use brackets. I took off the prefix also. This way, people can still paste it into their browser and add back what’s needed. Thanks for your strong input on this site.

          • Ken Abbott

            Likewise regarding the input on this site.

  • Allan Pearson

    Allan Pearson • 8 minutes ago
    So typical of the sin-seekers. Confronted with a Truth that goes against what they want they endeavor to change the Truth. But the Truth cannot be changed. And so people like Mr. Dershowitz ( I cannot refer to him as Professor as he has clearly abandoned all academic standards in pursuit of his political agenda) end up behaving like the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Remember Gen 3:1
    “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
    To which we must respond “YES. GOD DID SAY IT!”

  • mbabbitt

    So sad to see the hatred, put-downs, and name calling in the comments. Typical of so much today. Animosity used to defend truth as if it needs that kind of defense. If that demonstrates human progress, I want no part of it.

  • Rewrite the Bible to Support Gay Sex

    Why bother? The Levitical prohibitions are ritual prohibitions, like no pork or no cotton/polyester blends. It doesn’t even claim that there’s anything inherently bad about homosexual sex.

    • Rev Bob

      Try reading Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6

      • Rom. 1 talks about people engaging in unnatural sex. Yep, that’s pretty bad–heterosexuals engaging in gay sex. This has nothing to do with loving homosexual relationships.

        1 Cor. 6 talks about sexual immorality. What does that mean? Show me in the Bible, don’t just give me your interpretation of it.

        • I trigger libtards

          “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
          God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
          adulterers, nor homosexuals”

          1 Corinthians 6:9

    • Rev Bob

      Leviticus calls it an abomination.

      • But what is does “abomination” mean in that context? These are ritual transgressions like eating pork, not actual harm like murder.

  • GraceGuerilla

    It’s interesting that many scholars try to reinterpret these verses, but I suspect their efforts are largely in vain. We can change the context or translate Hebrew/Greek in a different way, but there is one unavoidable fact which is thread through the Bible from start to finish; a relationship with God is about surrender and transformation, about ‘dying to self’. In the OT, God demanded great personal surrender through the keeping of the law in order to be holy and in the NT, God asks for a surrender of our hearts. So, we can debate what a word might mean but it doesn’t change a thing. If we are not prepared to surrender it all, including time, money, body, sexuality (whether gay, straight, married, single), we’re going to not fully grasp the power of the Gospel or God’s Word.

Inspiration
Is Santa Claus Our Projection of The Messiah?
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us