Is the sacrifice of Jesus over rated?

[1hole]

....They're taught that they should love and respect someone who treats them like dirt.....cause that kid was born bad, it's all their fault.

But, that's what the bible teaches. The entirety of humanity is cursed, saddled with the responsibility of cleaning up the dirt that Adam and Eve made.

No it isn't, that's just YOUR (mis)interpretation!

We are born sinners and will be dealt with as such, unless we confess to all our sins, even if we don't know how we sinned. We must have sinned though cause that's what we do, we're born sinners......

Sinning is indeed what we all do. No one has to teach an infant to have furious rages, no one has to teach a young child to lie. Sinning is in our human nature from day one, we inherited it.

.... and that's a loving and fair god that should be loved and respected,

That loving God gives us rules for life and then, in love, has taken upon himself to pay the penalty for our failures.

.... even when that loving and fair god lays into us with the belt because of our transgressions.

No. In this life, God only punishes his own children for known and deliberate sin, and then only enough to get the rebellious child's attention. He has no need in this life to punish those who reject their heavenly Father, he'll deal with them later.

Many believers will flat out tell you your house burned down, or your dog died cause you sinned.

Those believers are wrong - God does not burn houses down nor kill dogs in spite - but you're blaming God for their wrongs; is that fair to Him? It seems to make you in the image of the imaginary harsh god you reject!

It all appears to be a control mechanism and it's created the best example of Stockholm Syndrome you'll ever see in which the victims form a sympathetic bond with the very one which is abusing them. That, or a whole lot of people are into being treated like a filthy piece of muck......either one is somewhat disturbing.

I wonder what kind of relationship you had with your father; I'd bet it wasn't good. Sorry about things like that but a lot of us endured emotionally difficult beginnings.

Some of us who were badly treated in our youth find the peace we need thru our faith in the loving Lord Jesus and Father; we can now look back and see it was He who held us up and took us through it all. That kind of returned love has nothing in common with Stockholm.

It's become common in these snowflake days to blame the wrongs we see or difficulties we experience in this life as responsibilities of God or other people. You seem understandably angry about the injustices we all see but perhaps you shouldn't project your own angry image on our loving and infallible God ... OR His well meaning but very fallible people.

[roadie]

No it isn't, that's just YOUR (mis)interpretation!



Sinning is indeed what we all do. No one has to teach an infant to have furious rages, no one has to teach a young child to lie. Sinning is in our human nature from day one, we inherited it.



That loving God gives us rules for life and then, in love, has taken upon himself to pay the penalty for our failures.



No. In this life, God only punishes his own children for known and deliberate sin, and then only enough to get the rebellious child's attention. He has no need in this life to punish those who reject their heavenly Father, he'll deal with them later.



Those believers are wrong - God does not burn houses down nor kill dogs in spite - but you're blaming God for their wrongs; is that fair to Him? It seems to make you in the image of the imaginary harsh god you reject!



I wonder what kind of relationship you had with your father; I'd bet it wasn't good. Sorry about things like that but a lot of us endured emotionally difficult beginnings.

Some of us who were badly treated in our youth find the peace we need thru our faith in the loving Lord Jesus and Father; we can now look back and see it was He who held us up and took us through it all. That kind of returned love has nothing in common with Stockholm.

It's become common in these snowflake days to blame the wrongs we see or difficulties we experience in this life as responsibilities of God or other people. You seem understandably angry about the injustices we all see but perhaps you shouldn't project your own angry image on our loving and infallible God ... OR His well meaning but very fallible people.

Actually, there is every chance that you in fact, are misinterpreting the bible, and it wouldn't be surprising as the bible is interpreted differently by pretty much everyone. Nobody, including you, is an authority on the bible, an impossible task when the provenance and accuracy of the bible itself can't be shown.

No, sinning is not some inherited nature, it's simply what believers have labelled the basic behavior of the critters that humans are. An infant has a furious rage because it is experiencing something it doesn't understand, and so reverts to instinct. As the infant grows, it hopefully also learns to adapt in a more productive manner.

I never said god burns houses down, or kills dogs, that's what many believers will tell you.......not me. But you gotta admit, perusing the bible will give anyone the sense that you're dealing with a pretty harsh entity here, entire world wiped out in a flood, famines, pestilence........best to mind your p's and q's with this entity, or you're getting smote like nobody's business.

My relationship with my father was actually very good, he taught me to think for myself and not accept on face value what the crowd was following. He taught me to question everything because everything known comes from mankind, and that's a very questionable species.

I'm not in any way angry about wrongs, or perceived injustices in the world, nor do I blame them on some entity which may, or may not, exist. These wrongs and injustices are simply the result of critters being critters.......it's just what we do. We do like to have a good cover for them though, and the bible works well for that.

[Ickisrulz]

I disagree my friend. Genesis 3:16 - 3:19 Man has suffered due to the sins of Adam and Eve. And death entered the world because of their sin...not ours.

We are talking about two different things. Sin entered the world because of Adam's transgression. That meant a harder path for man that would include increased pain, harder work and eventual physical death. We are all in that together (Paul said "we are one blood"). But each individual man will have to answer for what they did on earth not what Adam did in the garden.

I wrote this in another thread:

It was God’s intention that man learn the difference between good and evil. The learning was to take place within the bounds that he prescribed. Man was to obey God’s directions (e.g., don’t eat from a certain tree--certainly more commands were to come). When man disobeyed, he was placed on another path of learning. It was a much more difficult path because it brought in willing participation in sin. With that participation, came pain, suffering, hard work and death. Man was to learn why sin is harmful.

Jesus’ path of learning followed God’s original intention. Jesus obeyed God’s commands wholly and learned the difference between good and evil without being a sinner. This was what God wanted for Adam and Eve. Jesus suffered because of the sin in the world, but was not a willing participant in sin as are the rest of us. He was tempted as Adam was in the Garden, but passed every test (remember how Satan misquoted God to Jesus as he had to Eve).

Man is immersed in sin his whole life. He can see the adverse results of sin. Therefore, redeemed men will not engage in sin in the Age to come. He will have gained the knowledge God wanted him to have. Unfortunately, he learned it the hard way.

[dverna]

Sin entered the world because God cast Lucifer and the angels that followed Lucifer onto the earth. Sin was in place to tempt Eve and then Adam before they saw the forbidden fruit.

God could have cast sin to where it could not have influenced man...He did not. There is a good reason, but I do not know why.

And if God actually does know everything that will happen in the future (which, as an Open Theist, I do not believe) He knew exactly what would happen. The free choice of man affected God’s plan....and it angered him.

If you put a chocolate cake in front of a 2 year old, can you get angry enough to punish the child when they go for it? Especially if you know they will go for it? This is the first examples that supports that God’s omniscience is only complete wrt the past and present....He does not know every detail of future events.

[Ickisrulz]

Sin entered the world because God cast Lucifer and the angels that followed Lucifer onto the earth. Sin was in place to tempt Eve and then Adam before they saw the forbidden fruit.

God could have cast sin to where it could not have influenced man...He did not. There is a good reason, but I do not know why.

And if God actually does know everything that will happen in the future (which, as an Open Theist, I do not believe) He knew exactly what would happen. The free choice of man affected God’s plan....and it angered him.

If you put a chocolate cake in front of a 2 year old, can you get angry enough to punish the child when they go for it? Especially if you know they will go for it? This is the first examples that supports that God’s omniscience is only complete wrt the past and present....He does not know every detail of future events.

Speaking in technicalities, Eve was deceived and Adam transgressed. According to Paul, this event is how sin entered the human race. Satan presented an option that man would have eventually found for himself.

[dtknowles]

original sin refers to mankind not angels. adam was the first man who was responsible to God for all of mankind , when he sinned we inherited that sin just as if we ourselves did. we didn't have any choice in the matter just as we didn't have a choice to the color of our eyes or hair. just look at ones heart , as it says in genesis "our heart is only evil continually"....don't blame God for the sin , SATIN is the one who deserves the blame, he caused it from the very beginning when he wanted to be greater than God.. i"ll say this with my own words that God "drained the swamp in heaven " when He cast satin and his followers out of heaven.

"Adam was the first man who was responsible to God for all of mankind when he sinned we inherited that sin just as if we ourselves did." I don't buy that. Why would you believe that. How does it matter to me what Adam did or did not do. Beside, Genesis is a parable and there was not Adam or Eve. No tree of knowledge, no serpent, no temptations from Satan.

It is just a story about the awakening self-awareness that is identified as the evolution of Homo Sapiens into Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Stone age humans to modern humans. By that definition Original Sin would be humans becoming intelligent and self-aware. Yes and maybe selfish but I expect humans were selfish before we were intelligent and self-aware. It is incredible that God would forbid us the fruits of the tree of knowledge. Did God not want us to be knowledgeable?

If you are one of those people who believe the Bible is the literal truth, greater understanding, for you, is out of reach. Do you really believe Tree, Apple, Serpent thing really happened? The Universe was created in 7 days?

I can't believe that Churches teach children that these things are true and don't explain that they are parables and then explain the lessons to be learned from the fictional stories.

See why I had to stop teaching Catechism.

Tim

[a danl]

"adam was the first man who was responsible to god for all of mankind when he sinned we inherited that sin just as if we ourselves did." i don't buy that. Why would you believe that. How does it matter to me what adam did or did not do. Beside, genesis is a parable and there was not adam or eve. No tree of knowledge, no serpent, no temptations from satan.

It is just a story about the awakening self-awareness that is identified as the evolution of homo sapiens into homo sapiens sapiens. Stone age humans to modern humans. By that definition original sin would be humans becoming intelligent and self-aware. Yes and maybe selfish but i expect humans were selfish before we were intelligent and self-aware. It is incredible that god would forbid us the fruits of the tree of knowledge. Did god not want us to be knowledgeable?

If you are one of those people who believe the bible is the literal truth, greater understanding, for you, is out of reach. Do you really believe tree, apple, serpent thing really happened? The universe was created in 7 days?

I can't believe that churches teach children that these things are true and don't explain that they are parables and then explain the lessons to be learned from the fictional stories.

See why i had to stop teaching catechism.

Tim

yes tim, i do believe the bible is true. I would also love to know where you get all your information from.

[dverna]

Speaking in technicalities, Eve was deceived and Adam transgressed. According to Paul, this event is how sin entered the human race. Satan presented an option that man would have eventually found for himself.

This is an interesting perspective...."man would have eventually found for himself". It explains why God cast Lucifer and his followers to earth instead of somewhere were evil would not be found. God wanted man to find evil.... I suspect, God wanted that to happen on His terms but Adam and Eve found out on their own the "hard" way. There was a whole universe to work with but God picks the earth for Lucifer. God wanted man to know evil...maybe He even needed man to know evil???

We will never know what God had planned. God could have destroyed Adam and Eve and tried a do-over...as He attempted with the Great Flood. I am left wondering....Did God plan for and/or foresee the "free will" of Adam and Eve, or did he react to the "free will" of Adam and Eve? It looks that God reacted, but that may be due to how I am reading and interpreting that section of Genesis.

It is one reason I have drifted to Open Theism. There are a number of times in the Bible where God is influenced by man in His decisions. God knows the past and the present and He does not change it (either unable to or unwilling to). God does not know the future 100% perfectly, but He can influence it.

It makes praying to God for some of the "silly" things we want (new car, better job, winning the game, selling our home for a profit, etc) more plausible. If er believe we can appeal to, and influence God to intercede in what will happen in the future prayer makes sense. If God already knows what will happen, what is the use of praying for things and results we want...are we not praying for the results He wants?

[popper]

Jesus certainly suffered but He did not die. ops, He did die. Actually he was severely tortured! Ouch! Tell us what it feels like! His body was NOT protected from the pain of death. It gets more interesting as there are some theologians who believe from wording in Scripture that Jesus has been on earth many times. The Bible states there were others that DIDN'T die! Why? Try to reason that one. Hint - transfiguration?
There are a number of times in the Bible where God is influenced by man in His decisions Really? Noah was a ship builder for hundreds of years, working on ONE boat. All mankind was NOT destroyed! Noah 'influenced' God by his obedience! I would state that God gave an alternative, not 'changed' his mind. That is what the Bible is about! Example after example of the God given alternative to disobedience. He controls the circumstance, we control our decision (choice).

[1hole]

Actually, there is every chance that you in fact, are misinterpreting the bible, and it wouldn't be surprising as the bible is interpreted differently by pretty much everyone.

I avoid "interpretation" of scripture, that's why I usually cite the specific book/chapter/verse(s) I'm referring to. When I do state my opinion I always note IS only my opinion. Bible meaning is typically so clear that no interpretations are needed - which is most of the time.

Nothing is true based on how fervently we "believe" it to be so, problems come from those who argue against what is clearly written and baldly state their private interpretation is "truth"; that's not an honest position for anyone to take. Meaning that when someone like Tim forcefully proclaims that no more than 8 of the 10 Commandments are correct because "God told him so", forget it. (2 Pet 1:20)

Nobody, including you, is an authority on the bible, ...

A LOT of people are authorities "on the bible (sic)" but I don't qualify for that label. I am, at best, an armchair theologian but I've read it, cover to cover and do have a working knowledge of what's written and can usually find where it's written.

I list my references to show they are NOT my own ideas. Just try to get those who proudly claim to have new, better understandings of how, and from where, they get their brilliant new revelations on what the Bible means and/or what it should say.

... an impossible task when the provenance and accuracy of the bible itself can't be shown.

Nonsense.

Much of what was previously denied about Bible history has been given provenance by archeological finds; not all parts have been proven correct but NOTHING has even proven the Bible wrong!

There is very little concrete evidence that Plato and Aristotle existed but that little we have "proves" they did. On the other hand, literally thousands of (scientific) evidences supporting what is in the Bible have been found in just the last couple hundred years but so called "higher critics" refuse to admit it! (They can't, that would blow away their arrogant claims to be "Bible experts"!)

Finally, strong circumstantial evidence is often legally accepted as proof in court. Lawyers have long said the known records of the life and works and the immense historical impact of Jesus life, death and resurrection are more than sufficient evidence to prove the important facts of the Bible story in court.

So, if historical artifacts and history count for anything, your claim that the Bible is unsupported falls flat on its face. And that's a fact, not just my opinion. But, you'll have to do your own research to confirm it, I'm not going to look it all up again just to correct an erroneous web claim.

[dverna]

popper

Your example is one case of man influencing God, unless you believe God wanted to bring on the flood for some other reason, but He regretted creating man. God regrets creating man in Genesis 6:6. The flood occurs in Genesis 7...His actions were caused by His anger with man.

In Exodus, 32:12, Moses pleads with the Lord to spare the Israelites...He was prepared to destroy them. And in in verse 14: "Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened." God changed His mind...or at least thus it is written.

There more examples reported.

[dtknowles]

yes tim, i do believe the bible is true. I would also love to know where you get all your information from.

Well, I certainly look to more than one book. I have been studying Science, Economics and Philosophy for more than 40 years. My professor for Religions of Mankind was not happy I chose to write my term paper (in 1979) on Confucianism. He was a Protestant Minister.

Tim

[roadie]

Nonsense.

Much of what was previously denied about Bible history has been given provenance by archeological finds; not all parts have been proven correct but NOTHING has even proven the Bible wrong!

There is very little concrete evidence that Plato and Aristotle existed but that little we have "proves" they did. On the other hand, literally thousands of (scientific) evidences supporting what is in the Bible have been found in just the last couple hundred years but so called "higher critics" refuse to admit it! (They can't, that would blow away their arrogant claims to be "Bible experts"!)

Finally, strong circumstantial evidence is often legally accepted as proof in court. Lawyers have long said the known records of the life and works and the immense historical impact of Jesus life, death and resurrection are more than sufficient evidence to prove the important facts of the Bible story in court.

So, if historical artifacts and history count for anything, your claim that the Bible is unsupported falls flat on its face. And that's a fact, not just my opinion. But, you'll have to do your own research to confirm it, I'm not going to look it all up again just to correct an erroneous web claim.

Archeological finds are interpreted as to their meaning, the same way the bible is. In theory, there would be no problem in that, except for the human tendency to want to "correct" a long held belief, or in some cases, change that belief completely. Humans have agendas, the same people who translated the bible all throughout history also had agendas, whether they knew it or not. When an opportunity arises to further that agenda, it's usually taken......we've seen this all throughout history, we're seeing more of it in recent times. The ones in power write, or rewrite, history. It has always been, and will always be, that way.

Lawyers and courts? Do any believers really want lawyers and courts interpreting the bible's accuracy? Is religion not messed up enough already without bringing those characters on board? Talk about agendas, I can only imagine what the final result would be, and it ain't good. The bible cannot be proven, it can also not be dis proven, it's folly for anyone to argue about it. Belief in the bible is a personal choice, not something to be legislated by lawyers and courts.

Your arguments are without legs to stand on.........and that's not an erroneous web claim.

[dtknowles]

This is an interesting perspective...."man would have eventually found for himself". It explains why God cast Lucifer and his followers to earth instead of somewhere were evil would not be found. God wanted man to find evil.... I suspect, God wanted that to happen on His terms but Adam and Eve found out on their own the "hard" way. There was a whole universe to work with but God picks the earth for Lucifer. God wanted man to know evil...maybe He even needed man to know evil???

We will never know what God had planned. God could have destroyed Adam and Eve and tried a do-over...as He attempted with the Great Flood. I am left wondering....Did God plan for and/or foresee the "free will" of Adam and Eve, or did he react to the "free will" of Adam and Eve? It looks that God reacted, but that may be due to how I am reading and interpreting that section of Genesis.

It is one reason I have drifted to Open Theism. There are a number of times in the Bible where God is influenced by man in His decisions. God knows the past and the present and He does not change it (either unable to or unwilling to). God does not know the future 100% perfectly, but He can influence it.

It makes praying to God for some of the "silly" things we want (new car, better job, winning the game, selling our home for a profit, etc) more plausible. If er believe we can appeal to, and influence God to intercede in what will happen in the future prayer makes sense. If God already knows what will happen, what is the use of praying for things and results we want...are we not praying for the results He wants?

Don, the Adam, Eve, Lucifer, tree of knowledge thing is a parable. The same for the fallen angels being cast out of heaven. They are not real historical things. They are stories meant for teaching philosophy.

Tim

[1hole]

Don, the Adam, Eve, Lucifer, tree of knowledge thing is a parable. The same for the fallen angels being cast out of heaven. They are not real historical things. They are stories meant for teaching philosophy. Tim

Goodness, where did you get info that makes you so certain of all that?

Do you really expect, or want us to believe that you believe those stories were "parables" written thousands of years ago so you could take them to your philosophy class in the 1970s? (I may be gullible but I ain't THAT gullible! )

[curioushooter]

Jesus “died” on the cross for our sins. But God cannot die....Jesus certainly suffered but He did not die.

IMHO, many Christians seem to over rate His sacrifice.

When I was an atheist, I had no illusions of everlasting life, yet I would have died to save my children. I think every decent person would do the same.

Jesus “died” knowing he would not die....not much sacrifice there. Jesus “died” to provide a path to salvation for billions of God’s children. We would die to save one of our children.

Should we be grateful that He gave us a way to salvation....CERTAINLY!!

Was it much of a sacrifice....not in the big scheme of things.

First, to understand any of this you have to understand the essence of God. While it is true Jesus did know He would resurrect...in fact He knew this from the beginning of time...you are making a very great mistake to equate the putative suffering of yourself with the suffering of the God-man.

God is perfect, infinite, and entirely just being. It is only out of Love that anything exists...a gift from God. He doesn't need us. He could have just as easily never created anything as He is entirely self-sufficient. He gave us free will merely so we could genuinely love Him back, but rather we disobeyed Him-an insult we could never possibly reconcile, as God is infinite. Only an infinitely good sacrifice could amend the infinite insult.

Jesus was both God and man. This means that for him to suffer even in the least was infinitely more of an insult that it would be for us as well as infinitely more potent in terms of redeeming mankind. Since Jesus was perfect because His nature was divine the sufferings in the Passion were infinitely greater than anything we could ever suffer...if we were tortured a million times it wouldn't compare. We simply are not good enough, not knowledge able enough, to be humiliated as greatly. And more than simply endure death and resurrection, He endured the worst torture/execution ever devised by man.

You say you would die for your children. I wonder what you would be saying as your flesh is being ripped from your body and you are left to hang on a cross with your own weight either bearing on NAILS driven through your joints or collapsing your diaphragm. I am pretty sure you wont be begging for forgiveness of the executioners as Christ did.

[dtknowles]

……….Meaning that when someone like Tim forcefully proclaims that no more than 8 of the 10 Commandments are correct because "God told him so", forget it. (2 Pet 1:20)
………....

Let us start with the first Commandment that God showed me (not told) to be incorrect.

Keep the Sabbath day holy.

God cares little for calendars they are a thing of Man. Tis the seasons that mark God's time. God cares not which day or days you look to him with praise. Better we make each day holy. Is one day a week enough and if one day a week is enough why isn't one day a month enough. It is a Bible thing, Abrahamic. Followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians.

It is no sin if I work on the Sabbath, don't go to church, mosque or temple. Religions fought over which day of the week is holy, Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

Why does the calendar have Sunday as the first day of the week if it is really the last day of the week?

It does help churches, mosques and temples collect offerings if there is a special day each week for them.

Tim

[1hole]

Let us start with the first Commandment that God showed me (not told) to be incorrect.

Keep the Sabbath day holy.....

I wondered if it would be something like that (but you've omitted the other law He told you was wrong ....)

Now, given your background and training I'm not surprised you're confused. What you've been told by a RCC rule following, legalistic bunch of priests is that the Old Testament rules - sabbath worship - still applies to Christians; that's not true, certainly not for the reasons the Mosaic Law was given.

All of the Ten ARE important, in principle. But ALL ten of the Laws of Moses were fulfilled when the Lord died and rose again - every jot and tittle of the Law, as such, was completed at that moment.

However, all of the Ten - save that one - are repeated in one way or another in the New Testament so they still matter. We do need a day for worship but Christians are given full latitude in which day they come together. (see Mk 2:27, Rom 14:5-6)

Why does the calendar have Sunday as the first day of the week if it is really the last day of the week?

Why? Well, first you need to understand that neither Hebrews nor Christians made that calendar. In fact, we have no reason to suspect a calendar as we know it even existed for Hebrews for several thousands of years after creation so keeping track of "weeks" and "days" didn't matter to anyone until Moses' stone tablets made it important.

To the degree a calendar existed even in the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew it was Roman. About 400 AD, one of your infallible Popes (Gregorie) accepted the Roman calendar but set the supposed date of Jesus birth around 400 AD. We still count BC/AD years from that point and we still use the Roman calendar with its pagan names for months and days. But there's no foundation to think the Roman calendar figured into God's concerns. (Col 2:12)

In apostolic times Christians came together to worship, study scripture and sing praises to God on Resurrection day, the first day of the week, on what the Romans called Sunday. And we have come to call Sunday the "Christian sabbath", which is fine until legalistic dummies start screaming about it. (Acts 20:4)

Next .... ?

[dtknowles]

I wondered if it would be something like that (but you've omitted the other law He told you was wrong ....)

Now, given your background and training I'm not surprised you're confused. What you've been told by a RCC rule following, legalistic bunch of priests is that the Old Testament rules - sabbath worship - still applies to Christians; that's not true, certainly not for the reasons the Mosaic Law was given.

All of the Ten ARE important, in principle. But ALL ten of the Laws of Moses were fulfilled when the Lord died and rose again - every jot and tittle of the Law, as such, was completed at that moment.

However, all of the Ten - save that one - are repeated in one way or another in the New Testament so they still matter. We do need a day for worship but Christians are given full latitude in which day they come together. (see Mk 2:27, Rom 14:5-6)



Why? Well, first you need to understand that neither Hebrews nor Christians made that calendar. In fact, we have no reason to suspect a calendar as we know it even existed for Hebrews for several thousands of years after creation so keeping track of "weeks" and "days" didn't matter to anyone until Moses' stone tablets made it important.

To the degree a calendar existed even in the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew it was Roman. About 400 AD, one of your infallible Popes (Gregorie) accepted the Roman calendar but set the supposed date of Jesus birth around 400 AD. We still count BC/AD years from that point and we still use the Roman calendar with its pagan names for months and days. But there's no foundation to think the Roman calendar figured into God's concerns. (Col 2:12)

In apostolic times Christians came together to worship, study scripture and sing praises to God on Resurrection day, the first day of the week, on what the Romans called Sunday. And we have come to call Sunday the "Christian sabbath", which is fine until legalistic dummies start screaming about it. (Acts 20:4)

Next .... ?

So what will it be, is not worshiping on the Sabbath a sin or not? You give a straight answer to that and I will tell you the second commandment that is not a sin. I bet you can guess.

Actually it is not hard. Just look at the ten commandments and ask yourself. Which of these is not truly wrong.

Tim

[popper]

Don - God changed His mind...or at least thus it is written. Semantics. We are given the option of right or wrong with consequences, our choice. God DID destroy all BUT the righteous with the flood! So did He really change his mind?
As for the Israelite slaves leaving Egypt, did happen as recorded by the Egyptians! And the plagues are recorded but attributed to a Destroyer. Occurred between the Old and New kingdom times - about the time the Hyksos came into Egypt. Hyksos are believed to be from what we call Armenia (semites - from Shem). Many scholars also believe Abram was actually from the same area vs tradition of south desert. South Ur (remains) is mostly a cemetery(?) with little evidence (remaining) of really being a 'town'. No archeological digs proving a large population lived there. If Abram had traveled from the coast (which was at one time fertile) up the Euphrates (east on the mountain side) he would have gone through many peoples to get to Baghdad and around the corner to Israel. With herd and large family it would have been a LONG trip. From Van down would have been much shorter and evidence shows cattle were more prevalent north of Baghdad. Language studies indicate that written evidence from 9000 BC (earliest) are from Armenia area. Basically tabulation data of livestock and grain. Oh, Flavious Josephus was well known for embellishing his writings as he got paid by the Romans (Massada).