Miscellaneous Bible vs. the World Thread

[Sean Osborne]

I'm gonna kick off this thread with the following.


Legends, Lore and Logic

In Defense of the Faith
Friday, December 23, 2005
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

I got an email over the weekend from a reader asking for some information about the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible's account of Noah's Ark. "I have some co workers that argue that the Epic Of Gilgamesh shows evidence that the Genesis account of the Flood of Noah was taken from this document. I need some "ammunition" to refute this," he wrote.

First, a little historical background. Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq.
Many stories and myths were written about Gilgamesh, some of which were written down on clay tablets that still survive. The oldest existing fragments date to about 2000 BC -- roughly the time of Abraham.
The most complete surviving version of the Epic of Gilgamesh dates from the middle of the 6th century BC and was found in the ruins of the library of Ashram, king of Assyria at Nineveh.
The Gilgamesh Epic itself dates to about 2700 BC, say the experts, relying on the text of the surviving fragments.
In it, Gilgamesh meets Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim was granted immortality by the gods after he and his wife became the only human survivors of a world-wide flood, and Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh the story.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is widely considered to be the oldest human composition ever found. By comparison, the first five Books of the Bible were penned by Moses around the 13th century BC, at least seven hundred years after the Epic of Gilgamesh had been in circulation.
Because the Gilgamesh story is older, the automatic assumption is that it was the inspiration for the Hebrew account of Noah's Ark.
It sounds convincing, but only if one approaches it with a built-in bias. If one is looking for an alternative explanation for the Bible's account, then Gilgamesh fits the bill.
On the other hand, if one is looking for the most logical explanation, then the entire argument collapses under its own weight.
There is a principle of logic attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam, commonly referred to as 'Occam's Razor', also known as the 'principle of parsimony'. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building.
Occam's Razor is a method by which to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest explanation. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon.
By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies. In its shortest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
To beat a dead horse to death, let me simplify it even more: the simplest explanation is logically the most likely to be correct.
This isn't an effort to 'prove' the Genesis account is true. I believe that it is true because of my faith. But faith doesn't replace logic. Logic confirms faith. The Genesis account is the only logical explanation that fits the known facts.
The Epic of Gilgamesh tells the following story: In the time before the Flood, there was a city, Shuruppak, on the banks of the Euphrates. There, the counsel of the gods held a secret meeting; they all resolved to destroy the world in a great flood.
Gilgamesh may, however, be the explanation for the saying, the 'walls have ears'.
All the gods were under oath not to reveal this secret to any living thing, but Ea (one of the gods that created humanity) came to Utnapishtim's house and told the secret to the walls of Utnapishtim's house, thus not technically violating his oath to the rest of the gods.
He advised the walls of Utnapishtim's house to build a great boat, its length as great as its breadth, to cover the boat, and to bring all living things into the boat.
Utnapishtim, eavesdropping on the conversation, gets straight to work and finishes the great boat by the new year. Utnapishtim then loads the boat with gold, silver, and all the living things of the earth, and launches the boat.
Ea orders him into the boat and commands him to close the door behind him. The black clouds arrive, with the thunder god Adad rumbling within them; the earth splits like an earthenware pot, and all the light turns to darkness.
The Flood lasts for seven days and seven nights, and finally light returns to the earth. Utnapishtim's boat comes to rest on the top of Mount Nimush.
The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Genesis account converge on several points, but one thing immediately leaps out. Gilgamesh' account is a logical description from the perspective of man. It is an effort to put an ancient memory into an understandable historical context.
The Genesis account is a logical description of the same event from the perspective of God. The Genesis account fills in details missing from Gilgamesh that could be known only to God.
The Gilgamesh account is an effort to make sense of a global catastrophe -- the Genesis account puts it into logical context, connecting the dots from Adam to the Rapture.
The Flood is a necessary part of the Bible's outline of human history -- remove it and the Scriptures lose all context. God's promise to Noah is fulfilled at the Cross. The power of sin is destroyed, rather than the destruction of sinners.
Jesus refers to the 'days of Noah' to describe the last days, Peter uses the salvation of Noah as an example of the Rapture (2nd Peter 3:3-7)
The Genesis account provides answers. The Gilgamesh account only poses new questions.
Legends of a world-wide flood can be found in the folklore of such diverse places as the Middle East, India, China, Australia, southern Asia, the islands of the Pacific, Europe, and the Americas.
Was the Chinese legend of a global flood inspired by the Epic of Gilgamesh? Did the Australian aborigines and the Native Americans read the Epic of Gilgamesh? The Pacific Islanders?
If the Flood is a myth, why does every civilization or culture share the same common, distant memory of a global catastrophe that NEVER happened? There must be a logical explanation. A Sumerian cuneform tablet unknown until relatively recently doesn't make the cut.
Occam's Razor says that the only logical conclusion is that there must really have been a world-wide flood that a handful of survivors escaped by boarding a giant ark filled with animals that came to rest on a mountain top after the waters receded. No other explanation fits the facts.
There are many differing accounts, but all are rooted in the same historical occurrence. If there were no Biblical account, it is likely that the Flood would be an accepted part of the human historical record, like dinosaurs or cavemen.
It is precisely BECAUSE the Bible says the Flood was a Divine judgment against sin that the Genesis account is so vigorously opposed by its critics.
Remove the references to an all powerful God demanding personal accountability from His creation and a global flood is no more fantastic than concluding a giant asteroid hit the earth 85 million years ago and killed all the dinosaurs.
'Stuff happens' is a more comfortable conclusion to live with than personal accountability to an all-knowing and Perfect God. That is also perfectly logical, as Paul notes in Romans 1:28:
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . ."
The Genesis story fits a logical timeline, has a logical place in history and answers the questions Gilgamesh does not, (like, who told the Australian aborigines there was a world-wide flood if it is really a myth?)
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is also the most logical.
". . . for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure." (Isaiah 46:9-10) Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume 51, Issue 19

[Sean Osborne]

The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest Vol: 51 Issue: 24 - Saturday, December 24, 2005

Special Report: Is Christmas a Christian Holiday? I know a lot of Christians who refuse to celebrate Christmas. And a lot more who do, but feel guilty about it before the Lord, whether they want to admit it or not. It is difficult to really identify Christmas as it is celebrated in our culture with a Christian holiday. There's a reason for that. Although a majority of Americans polled identify themselves with Christmas, the greeting "Merry Christmas" grows more rare with each passing year, replaced instead with the secular (and meaningless) "Happy Holidays!" What the heck does THAT mean? It applies equally to 'Happy Labor Day" or "Happy President's Day" so what does it have to do with Christ? Let's take a look and see. And read carefully before you start firing off angry emails. I am probably NOT going where you think I am. First, there is no Bible doctrine that tells us we are to celebrate Christ's birth. It is His Death and Resurrection that paid our penalty for sin. The celebration of a birthday is actually antithetical to Scripture. There are only two birthday celebrations recorded in Scripture. The Bible tells us in Genesis 40:22 that on one of Pharaoh's birthdays he murdered his chief baker while a big celebration was going on. The other birthday celebration recorded was that of Herod, when he had John the Baptist murdered. On the other hand, Ecclesiates 7:1 tells us: "A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth." It is also clear that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. It gets COLD in the hills of Jerusalem in December. (Jerusalem is forecast to have a White Christmas this year). Even during a mild winter, December is the middle of the rainy season. Shepherds corraled their flocks from October to April. They weren't grazing in the fields, and the shepherds wouldn't have been out there with them at night in December. But Luke tells us "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night . . ." (Luke 2:8) Joseph and Mary were called to Bethlehem by order of Caesar to be taxed and for the census. Travel in December would be difficult at best, and no thinking ruler who wanted to collect taxes would pick the worst time of the year to order mass travel of an entire population. Travel was hard enough already. Jesus confirmed this, saying in Matthew 24:20, speaking to the Jews, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day . . " The choice of late December for the birth of our Lord predates Jesus by centuries. The celebration of the Babylonian sun-god, Tammuz, took place during the Winter Solstice (Dec 21 by our calendar). Any reputable encyclopedia will verify these facts. "Christmas- It was according to many authorities NOT celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of a remarkable person rather than their birth. A feast was established in memory of the Saviour in the 4th century. In the 5th century the Western Church ordered it to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol. The holly, the mistletoe, the yule log, and the wassail bowl are of pre-Christian times. The Christmas tree has been traced back to the Romans. It went from Germany to Great Britain." (Encyclopedia Americana) After Constantine declared Christianity to be the state Church of Rome, there was considerable outcry from the pagan population who resented losing their feast days and traditions and myriad gods and goddesses. Constantine didn't get to be Caesar by alienating his base of support. He simply replaced the gods and goddesses with statues of saints and incorporated pagan holidays into Christian ones. Easter, for example, corresponds with the feast of "Ishtar" the goddess of fertility -- explaining all the rabbits and eggs (pagan symbols of fertility) associated with contemporary Easter celebrations. Christmas replaced the celebration of the Feast of Tammuz. It kept the masses happy and the Empire intact. To the world, Christmas is about Santa Claus, in whom our culture has invested all the attributes of Christ. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows if you're awake. . ." etc. So, should Christians celebrate Christmas? WHY NOT? Do YOU believe in Santa Claus? Or in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world? Do you REALLY believe God can't tell the difference? Why should we exclude ourselves from the merriment and the fun of family, Christmas presents and exclamations of 'peace on earth, good will toward men' because others don't see things as we do? We celebrate Labor Day with picnics and hot dogs. We celebrate the Fourth of July, according to our unique American customs and traditions. We KNOW that Jesus is the reason for the season - for us. Should we choose this date to celebrate the unspeakable Gift God has given us, we can do so without worrying about it. On the other hand, if we choose not to celebrate Christmas because it is commercialized beyond recognition and not in keeping with the Bible, we find ourselves in a quandry. We are taking a stand on empty air. The world has never celebrated Christmas because of Biblical principles -- neither has the True Church, since there are no Biblical principles upon which to base it. In the Agony in the Garden, Jesus prayed for us so fervently that His sweat mingled with blood. What was it that He prayed? "I pray NOT that thou shouldest take them OUT of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not OF the world, even as I am not OF the world." (John 17:15-16) There is a difference between our physical state of being, which is currently IN the world, and our spiritual state of being, which is, as Blood-bought Christians, being positionally ALREADY seated in the heavenlies. Jesus kept the cultural feast days of His era. Some of them were religious, some were not. He knew He was 'in' the world, but not 'of' it. Paul wrote in Romans 14:5; "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." There is no sin in celebrating Christmas as the day we acknowledge God's Gift to the world of a Saviour. Neither can I see any Biblical basis for NOT celebrating Christmas because it isn't really His Birthday. To some it is a day on the calendar. To others, it is a day of frustration and anger because others fail to associate Christmas with Christ -- a frustration so intense that it makes Christmas, for them, the least happy of all days. Somehow, that doesn't quite connect with what Christmas is all about. It is merely a cultural reminder that there WAS a Day when the Lord of all Glory took on the body of a Man, lived the perfect life we are incapable of living, and paid the penalty on our behalf for that incapacity. It doesn't matter if it really WAS December 25th. It doesn't matter if the world has a different agenda. We already know that. That is why we sought forgiveness for our sins, whereas the world loves its sin. There is no sin in being happy. Even on Christmas. God knows who worships Him and who worships Santa Claus. He doesn't base it on whether or not you have a Christmas tree (unless you start offering sacrifices to it). This isn't rocket science, but you needn't take my word for it. "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." (Romans 14:6) "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (Romans 14:8) Enjoy Christmas in all its joy and good will, according to your family customs and traditions. Go ahead and put up a Christmas tree. Christians don't worship a DAY -- we worship the Author of Days. Merry Christmas, my brothers and sisters. I love you all. Especially at Christmas.

[Sean Osborne]

This one is good for expanding the context of the current, apparently leftist, view of the war which is raging in Israel and Lebanon.

So, What Would They Do?

I was listening with interest when a British reporter was called in by Fox News to give her 'analysis' of the current Middle East conflict between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel. The context of the interview was in relation to Hezbollah's upping the ante by firing a new, longer range rocket into Afula, some ten miles south of Haifa.

The interviewer pointed out President Bush's statement that the root cause of the violence was Hezbollah and Hamas.

The British reporter, Hillary McKenzie, immediately took exception to Bush's statement, saying that 'in Europe's view' (which obviously was shared by McKenzie) the root of the problem was really Israel's refusal to grant the Palestinians a state of their own.

The fact that every 'occupied' territory vacated by Israel was immediately used to stage new attacks against Israel aside, what would, say, the British do? Let's just suppose that a group of Irishmen living in Ireland wanted an independent Irish state in place of the British mandate in Northern Ireland?

Let's sweeten the pot by pretending that the Irishmen wanting an Irish state on Irish soil in place of the British-ruled state set up by the British after conquering its inhabitants won't take 'no' for an answer?
To make it even more interesting, let's pretend that these Irishmen set up an anti-British terrorist group and gave it a nationalist-sounding name, like, maybe the "Irish Republican Army" with a cool acronym like the Palestinians have in the Palestinian Liberation Organization's acronym, PLO?

So, supposing there was an entity called the IRA that used bombs and terrorist attacks aimed at driving the British off Irish land and setting up an Irish state under Irish rule?

What would the British do?

Would they conduct ground wars against the IRA? Would they imprison the Irish 'freedom fighters' who were fighting with the only weapon they had -- terrorism -- against a ruling external nation much too powerful for the IRA to fight by conventional means?

Or would they, as McKenzie says Europe sees it, immediately turn Northern Ireland over to the Irish 'rebels?'

Indeed, would ethnic Irishmen seeking to free themselves from foreign rule even qualify as 'rebels'? Wouldn't they be 'freedom fighters' like the Palestinians?

What IS the difference between British rule in Northern Ireland and Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza? Is there one? You bet there is. Before there WAS a Britain, there was an Israel. And before the British ever discovered there was an island across the Irish sea, the 'Palestinian territories' were part of ethnic Israel. Northern Ireland was never composed of ethnic Britons.

And Britain did not come into possession of Northern Ireland as a consequence of repelling Irish invaders whose goal was the extermination of the British race.

While we're on the subject, China voiced its opposition to Israel's incursion into Lebanon at the Security Council, demanding Israel be condemned for its actions against Hezbollah.

What if there were an island composed of ethnic Chinese that had NEVER been part of the People's Republic of China? What if that island declared itself an independent nation? What would China do if Tawan resisted forcible unification with the Red Chinese? According to Beijing, it would use all the weapons at its disposal to bring Taiwan back under its rule.
What if Chechnya were to declare it did not want to be part of the new Russian Federation after the Soviet Union collapsed? What would Moscow do? Would it grant Chechnya the independence its population demanded? Or would it conduct a decade-long war, killing thousands of civilians in the process, to force Chechnya into the Russian Federation against the will of the majority of Chechen citizens?

What would the French do if the Vietnamese, after decades of colonial rule, declared its independence? Would it wish the Vietnamese rebels 'bon chance' and give the country back to its people? Or would it fight a ten-year war to keep Vietnam inside the sphere of French colonial influence?
Of course, none of these are exactly in parallel with the Israeli-Arab war. The Irish Republican Army poses no existential threat to the continued viability of Great Britain. The IRA has not sworn to annihilate every living Englishman and then seize Britain's assets for itself.

The Taiwanese have not attacked Beijing, or threatened the annihilation of the Red Chinese state and every living Chinaman on the mainland.
The Chechens have not banded together with the express purpose of destroying Russia and setting up a Chechen state in its place.
And the Vietnamese defeated the French, after which, it left them alone.
What would the United Nations do if New Zealand attacked Australia with the express purpose of annihilating Australia as a nation and exterminating every Australian it could find, simply because they were Australians? Would they urge Australia to show 'restraint'?

We already know what the British would do. They would increase their troop presence in Northern Ireland, and capture or kill every Irishman that lifted a hand against them. And they would NOT call the IRA 'freedom fighters'. They'd call them terrorists.

China has threatened to launch an all-out invasion of Tawian and overthrow any Taiwanese government that dared to formally declare independence from the Red Chinese government Taiwan was never part of.

And Moscow has been conducting an all-out war against Chechen 'rebels' whom Moscow calls 'terrorists' and not 'freedom fighters'.
But Israel, a sovereign member state of the United Nations, has fought five wars for its existence against the combined forces of the Arab world. In each case, the provocation for the Arab attacks was the mere existence of a Jewish state called Israel.

In each case, Brits, Chinese, Russians and UN have demanded Israel withdraw to indefensible borders, insisted on a cease-fire in order to give Israel's enemies a chance to rest and regroup before launching a new war. And in each case, it blamed Israel for causing the war BY ITS EXISTENCE, demanding it surrender parts of itself to the aggressors in exchange for a 'peace' that never came.

History tells us what THEY would do. But, of course, their situation is different.

They aren't Jews.

[Aplomb]

Amen.

I like that very much, Sean. Those were enlighteningly good parady scenarios, with that fatal punch of truth landing at the end. Nice.

[Sean Osborne]

My bad for not linking to the site of the author. The above is from the one and only http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/arti...rticleID=13189

[Joey Bagadonuts]

I came across this article today while surfing and it surprised me. I'm not sure how these FEW Catholic bishops can say they don't believe in some parts of the Bible and still say they are Catholic.

I also think that the title of the article itself is misleading. It's NOT "the Catholic Church" that no longer believes in the accuracy of several parts of the Bible...it's just a few confused Bishops in England, Wales and Scotland. Bishops are not "heirarchy" in my opinion. They're more like "mid-level management". I doubt that the bishops superiors...(cardinals and the Pope) would consider bishops ""the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church".

I'm MORE than a little surprised that these bishops doubt passages from the book of Revelations.

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

They shouldn't expect to discover details about the end of the world? Have they read a newspaper lately?? This article is almost a year old now. I wonder if any of them regret their position now.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html


Europe

The Times October 05, 2005

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

TRUE

Exodus iii, 14

God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

Leviticus xxvi,12

“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

Exodus xx,1-17

The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7

The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29

Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection


***

[Aplomb]

Hey, Joey, Ace has been moderating about that article on Anomalies with some humor and sarcasm toward a Muslim apologist who posted it:
http://communities.anomalies.net/for...e/1#Post167937

Everything in the Bible is not to be taken literal nor has it ever been thought to be so in Catholicism. There are many writing styles in the Bible. The prophet, Jesus (PBUH), said in Matthew 5:29: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of they members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." It's a warning about the consequences of sin, not a "literal" how-to decree on what to do to yourself--and a good thing or we would all be self-inflicted w/ blindness.