>>>The need for false prophets and a corrupted Bible is clear. See Duet 13:1-5

>>>yes. I believe in the parts that have not been corrupted.

>>>No. I don't believe in the corrupted writings of Paul, John, and other Biblical writers who made incorrect assumptions about "faith". I believe God put the inaccurate writings in the Bible to test human beings like He said He would in Deut 13:1-5. It's quite clear God said *He* (not the devil or man) would send false prophets and dreamers of dreams to test Israel. So it's no surprise if we find them buried in the Bible all over the place. Joseph Smith and Mohammad are modern examples. They have played their parts well in the drama of Israel.

Could you please explain how you have determined what parts of the Bible are not corrupt? I am curious.

makes shit up.

Thousands of people for thousands of years thought they were *THE* ones to have figured it out or they pretended to know in order to con people. Either way, their gawd is silent, because he is not there. The world's longest running farce continues.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 04:14PM by atheist&happy:-).

I snorted when you said "the babble". I'm going to have to start using it.

Gee, all those scholars who spent their lives studying the Bible could have just asked Homeless.

It's like someone believing Cinderella's fairy god mother turned a pumpkin into a golden carriage, and mice into horses. However the parts about her turning a rat into a coachman and lizards into footmen are wrong!

It's all based on personal preference and interpretation of course, which is why none of it should be taken seriously.

Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I'm sure some religious authority somewhere is happy to let you know based on some cherry picked scripture.

About scholars, my view is stronger against atheism's rational debunking of the Bible, since I flat-out reject irrational and false doctrines of Paul, John, and others. I accept that Solomon's views and other men who write the Bible are just that, opinion's of man, and are subject to falibility. My views can withstand the rational attacks from atheists, and the scholars views cannot. I have the atheists to thank for that. I'm not perfect, but I'm happy with what I've finally settled on as a foundation.

First, whatever is in the Bible must be in agreement with what God told Moses. The law of Moses did not "change" with Jesus. Jesus kept the law and his mission was to support the law, as identified by the Jerusalem assembly in Acts 21. That assembly was led by the brother of Jesus, James, who knew what Jesus taught.

Paul and John hijacked the original teachings of Jesus and started a different religion. This can be verified by comparing what they taught with what Moses received. The teachings are not the same. God said He would send these types of men to Israel to test them, as recorded in Deut 13:1-5. (And end of Duet Chapter 12).

Many believe the original apostles were in agreement with Paul based on Acts 15, but the fact is James and Peter sent Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch, **without** answer to the question on circumcision, with 2 other brothers that would make sure the message was properly communicated. That action demonstrates their mistrust of Paul and Barnabas. The fact that Barnabas left him immediately after the event due Paul's refusal to take a third person as a "witness" of what happened in the future, shows how embarrassed Barnabas must have felt to be sent back to Antioch with "witnesses" to make sure the message was not miscommunicated. See end of Acts 15.

Thus, my Biblical paradigm puts greater weight of purity on anything Yahweh Elohim spoke to Moses, and thus, anything after Moses is more suspect. By the time we get to the New Testament, it's very corrupted--especially Paul and John's writings. There is a good reason both of these writers are different than the gospel of Matthew. Jesus never taught such things and neither did Moses.

So the answer to your question clearly is first read the five books of Moses, which is called "the Torah", and then judge everything else by that standard, based on Deut 13:1-5.

Be sure you notice the difference between what God says and what a "man" in the Bible says. Just because a man like David or Solomon or Saul say an opinion, it doesn't mean it is true. It may be false. For example, Solomon assumed the revelation to David about building a temple was about him, and so, he built a temple. Solomon was wrong. Thus, Solomon's temple and kingdom were destroyed. Rather the temple God spoke to David about is surely the temple described in Ezekiel 40 to 48's that will be built in the future, and will never be destroyed.

Also, remember the cryptic parables and hidden symbolism by the prophets after Moses are meant to be twisted by man and to cause confusion for rejecting Yahweh on the Mountain. Some cryptic scriptures that "Christians" claim prove are prophetically about Jesus, are not. Many are referring to Israel. So be very careful with interpretting the prophets.

Since I began on a foundation in Mormonism that the Bible is corrupt, I first leaned on LDS Scriptures and trusted them. Then when I left Mormonism, I assumed the Bible was not corrupted. But then, I found irrational ideas I had to throw out.

So, really, it's about assuming something is true until proven false. For example, if Jesus "died on the cross" for my sins, like Boyd K. Packer taught about the parable of the person in jail, who was set free by someone else paying the debt, then Jesus already paid for my sins. It's done. I'm free from death. In other words, if He truly died for our sins in our place, then once we confessed that truth, we should all be immediately changed into immortal beings and live forever. That doesn't happen, however, because the idea is false. It is totally irrational.

Sure enough, when I did the research, I discovered the idea was not in the first centuries. It developed in the 9th century. It also contradicts what Ezekiel teaches that the father should not bear the guilt of the son, nor the son the guilt of the father. Everyone is responsible for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:20)

What I can say, is the Bible is a mess after Moses, a cryptic puzzle full of easily twisted symbols that one needs to be careful when reading, not to mention, the text has been altered in places, and deliberately mistranslated, even what Moses wrote!

For example, the scripture in Genesis 3 about a man ruling "over" a women. Surprise, the Bible doesn't say it! The Hebrew says no such thing. The Hebrew means Eve was told: "he shale rule with or in you." (think of sex). The dang male rabbis deliberately altered the meaning by teaching the women: "And your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule *over* you." One little word has corrupted the concept for men and women in all religions! It is disgusting. Look up the Hebrew. It means "in" or "with". It does not mean "over".

The solution is to read in the English, and if something is illogical or seems wrong, go to the Hebrew and resolve it, if possible.

The key question to ask is: "Is this helpful to me today and now?" If not, ignore it.

Leave the afterlife alone.

So basically, you believe in the Torah?

Torah is the foundation, but even that can be corrupted by man in the translation (the example of the word "over" in Genesis 3:16) or altering the text. After that, I keep what I believe is true, which is rational to me, and I reject what is illogical and what I believe is false. If it's not reasonable, then it's assumed to be false. By using that model, I eventually landed on a most reasonable Biblical paradigm that explains God's behavior and actions better than any other on the planet, from my point of view, that is.

How do you know that every word of the Torah isn't made up? If part of it can be corrupt, can't ALL if it be corrupt? Do you have a time machine to go back and verify it?

As you you have said, you only believe what you can see. You do not have a time machine to go back and see god giving moses anything, so shouldn't you reject it in the same way you reject fossil evidence for Evolution, or are you just another theistic hypocrite that can not live by your own standards?

I can't fix what Israel did to make a mistake so that God withdrew the evidence. I'm forced to rely on faith and assumption about the story of Moses. On the other hand, atheists do not have any "proof" that it did not happen, defaulting to assumption as well. We are both in the same "belief or unbelief" boat about Moses.

Of course, in Arabia, there is "evidence" of a 40 foot split rock that had water coming from it (rocks are smooth at it's base to indicate a stream ran over the rocks at one time), a mountain chard black on the top, apparently burned all the way through the rocks by some kind of heat or intense fire. The mountain has an Egyptian atlar at its base, confirming the story of the golden calf. It has 12 stone markers, a cave, and other elements that supports the Biblical record. The "ignorant" nomads living in the area call it "The Mountain of Moses".

So, God apparently has left some tiny "evidence" that it really happened, lifting the story up to be more than just a fable, if one decides to connect the evidence in Arabia to the Biblical account. Anyone can do their own reseach of these "facts" and derive their own conclusions. I've made my *assumption*. It is where God spoke to Israel. You can make yours.

Now you claim you believe what you can not have observed.

So, which is the lie?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 08:43PM by MJ.

We all operate on faith and belief of some kind. Your comment appears foolish. Everyone's beliefs are based on both evidence and guessing or assumption. We assume the sun will rise tomorrow, for example, we don't "know it".

To presume you or I walk around "knowing" everything we believe is true is a delusion of sorts. I hope you don't think that way.

I've explained very clearly my belief system, but if you operate a different way, great. Do it your way. Your dragging lying into the discussion is a bit delusional.

You claimed that you WOULD NOT believe what you could not observe, are you now saying that was a lie and that you do indeed believe stuff you can not observe?

O am NOT talking about knowing, I am asking you to clarify your conflicting claims on your STATED BELIEFS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2013 08:50PM by MJ.

Thank you for sharing your method. I do not agree with it, but I understand where you are coming from now.

Thank you for listening. I don't expect you to agree with me, so that's cool.

Apparently, I answered your question sufficiently, but I had already written the following post before seeing this reply, so I thought I would add it. No need to discuss it further, since you understand my views, unless you want to:

I believe the whole Bible is exactly the way God intends it to be, a mixture of truth and error. He offered Israel the "easy" way to truth by speaking to everyone audibly at once (Exodus 20). No man can confuse what He says. But Israel rejected the easy way, and now, to get to the "truth" in the Bible, it is much more difficult. Indeed, it is very difficult.

Apparently, our experience to see what corruptions and twisting of truth occurs by man is far more important than the truth itself.

We need to use the earth as our experiment to believe what we do see personally, and ignore the popes, priests, rabbis, and pastors who love to "lead" and "control" us to make themselves feel important--and to earn money at the same time.

Thus, my new paradigm clearly explains why God doesn't want a prophet like Joseph Smith to fix the errors. For that reason, I believe, of course, the devil worked with him--either through Satanists or fallen angels to write the Book of Mormon and create Mormonism on the premise we need another man to fix the Biblical problem, just completely missing the mark. Indeed, by using Joseph Smith, God orchestrated and released that power to fulfill what He said in Deut 12:32;13:1-5 to test us whether we will trust a prophet-man or what God said to Moses, or more importantly, what God did with Moses.

“Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. 13 If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, **for the Lord your God is testing you** to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst."

Moses didn't enter the promised land, and thus, it is very important to figure out why. The answer? He made a lousy Elohim to the people, and thus, he hit the rock like a man in anger with his staff, rather than speaking calm words to the rock to have water flow from it. Thus, his decision to stand as a middle man in Yahweh's place is proven to be an error by the incident, which disgraced Yahweh in front of the people. Yahweh has only words to work with, and he doesn't use a staff like a man does. That's the point. Moses makes a lousy middle man. Thus, Yahweh made sure Moses did not enter the Promised Land to ensure we figure it out. The mistake is not about hitting the rock with a stick. The error goes all the way back to the people asked for Moses and Moses agreed to it, placing himself as God to the people:

7 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 8 “Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes [like I do—speak with words], and it will yield its water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock, and give drink to the congregation and their animals.” 9 So Moses took the rod from before the Lord as He commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 Then Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod [like a man, using physical objects]; and water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank. 12 Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel [by being a middle man with a rod], therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” (Numbers 20:7-12)

This is one example of hundreds of scriptures that fit my Biblical view like a hand in a glove.

Here is the quote from Ezekiel 18:20:

"20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

This contradicts Christianity today that teaches "Jesus died in our place" theology, but it is not what Jesus actually taught in the gospel of Matthew.

Also, keep in mind, my Biblical paradigm defines "if you sin you die" as physical death. However, in the presence of immortal beings, a society can actually overcome sin and live forever. A mortal becomes immortal without tasting death. So God says this:

"For why should you die [physical death], O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!” (Ezekiel 18:30)

God is speaking within the context of my view of life, that God is speaking to Israel about physical life forever, not an afterlife when we die.

Therefore, judging "sin" according to our modern world is misplaced. We all die because Yahweh was rejected by Israel on the mountain. When reading the Bible, we can't really apply some of the concepts of "sin" to modern times because some things are impossible to achieve today, such as not dying. That can only be accomplished with immortal beings standing in front of us teaching us how to overcome death. We can't overcome sin unless our bodies are changed, and that can't happen with Moses or a "prophet" as a middle man, such as Joseph Smith. Thus, we all die.

Here's a good example. For a Christian or human being to judge a homosexual as "sinning" is so outside the context of the Bible being written specifically to Israel with the intent of implementing a system that makes mortals into immortals, it is quite sinful to even make such judgments.

Whatever molds a person into a homosexual is between that person and God (or no god if they are atheists). Personally, I believe it is probably tied to evolution of genetics and the environment, which they are not responsible for. Let them express themselves as they are. I'm picking out the homosexual issue because it demonstrates how my model of the Bible prevents a believer from judging them. It's not our business.

Israel is the one that screwed up on the mountain in Exodus 20, not us. God knows that! It's his business to correct Israel, not ours.

I am aware of many of the things you are talking about here, specifically that mistranslations and taking things out of their original context is a huge problem. I agree with that part.

Im also curious about what MJ said. Musnt you reject your previous system of logic and study at least a little when you take a fairly substantial chunk (your base, the torah) as false, because it could quite easily have been faked?

It's a calculated assumption, but some tiny evidence has been left in Arabia to validate the Biblical account of God speaking to Moses, but it doesn't "prove it", of course. I wasn't there. See my response to ML above. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I could not abandon the Sermon on the Mount and Ten Commandments when I left Mormonism. They are practical principles I found as a strength in living in the family life I enjoy today. Therefore, for me to throw away Sinai doesn't make sense.

But it does make sense to throw away John's "born again" doctrines (they didn't work in my life) and Paul's false premise about "faith", and his foolish evangelical spirit that did and does more harm than good, stirring up people for no good reason, except to promote his false doctrines. Paul's view twists the old testament scripture beyond recognition.

Christianity has been a monster over the centuries because of Paul's writings and his extreme and unpolite evangelical spirit that pushes it's way accross the continents with its rude and pushy way of disturbing families and nations, only to produce a Peter Pan belief system that is of pagan origin and not from God (other than to test us whether we will be fooled or reject it).

Because Christianity is so irrational, atheists have done a good job rejecting it. It is Santa Claus in the flesh. Keep up the good work.

And unless you have a time machine you should not, by your own values you stated earlier, believe in moses law.

I don't claim to "know this is true". I'm quite clear on my assumptions verses fact or evidence. I don't claim an assumption to be a fact, nor a fact an assumption.

The time machine argument applies to evolution which is now promoted as truth, and not assumption. I believe atheism is a religion based on faith, just like my belief in Moses is based on faith. I don't claim to need a time machine to make an assumption about something, and neither do you. So neither of us need a time machine.

But to unequivocably state "we know" this or that is true in the past, we would need a time machine.

Can you hear the diffence?: "I believe God spoke to Israel" verses "I know macro evolution is true". Neither of us need a time machine to say of the past, "I believe this or that is correct." But regarding saying "I *know* it", then we need a time machine.

So, you are now changing your claim to say that you DO believe in things that you can not see?

again, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH KNOWLEDGE, this has to do with explicit statements you have made about YOUR BELIEFS. Statements that CONTRADICT each other.

So, which is the lie?

Homeless does have beliefs, so far here is what I know about his theology

The homeless theology consists of:


top god
we have the spirit that permeates all, its all powerful etc etc, and also he doesn't like to be talked about since we don't understand him (also sounds like he likes/or created atheists for this reason too)


universe bishop
also called elohim, taps into gods power, but inherently limited. I think he also goes by Yahweh sometimes if I understand right.


the Devil
bad guy with fried brain that is insane.


There isn't a clear purpose in life in his theology, so on that front it isn't as useful as other religions. I get the impression that we are all just a bunch of toys for the top god.