The Unholy Bible and the Institution of Slavery

"The doors of heaven and hell are adjacent and identical" - Nikos Kazantzakis "The Last Temptation of Christ"

It is a fact that the Christian Holy (?) Bible promotes slavery. A book that is believed to be inspired by a just God...promotes one of the most hateful relationship known to free humans.

Slavery is an institution based on a relationship of dominance and submission, whereby one person owns another and can exact from that person labor or other services. The Holy Bible refers to slaves as a personal property that could be purchased & beaten. In one of Jesus’ parables, he approved beating servants severely, instead of preaching of its abolition (The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” - Luke 12:47-48 NLT).

Christian supporters of slavery argued that the New Testament clearly did not forbid slavery, and did not deem it a sin and today, modern Christian apologetics try to soften it by claiming that a more accurate translation would be as a servant or hired workers rather then slaves despite that the Bible states that one should not regret the gift, for slaves were only half as expensive as hired workers (It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest. – Deuteronomy 15:18 King James Version)

Clearly, according to the Bible, the spirit of the Lord has little to do with liberty. The well-known reverend, Alexander Campbell contended: “there is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.” Only during the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century the spread of the ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau and others, and the increase of democratic sentiment led to a growing attack on the slave trade and slavery in general.

Isn’t it odd to think that faulty humans at least tried to abolish slavery compared to an all-knowing, all-good God?

Just read the following verses:

Deuteronomy 15:17, English Standard Version

Lev. 25:44-46, English Standard Version

Exodus 21:20-21

Exodus 21:2-6

Deut. 15:12

Deut. 28:68

Eph. 6:5-7

1 Tim. 6:1

Col. 3:22

Titus 2:9

1 Peter 2:18,21, NIRV

And then read these following quotations from some so-called men of God and other famous people:

“[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God… it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation… it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

“There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.” Rev. Alexander Campbell

“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

“The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.” A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

“The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined.” – United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been “sanctioned in the Bible.” They argued that biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.

The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because — after all — the slave was his property.

You won’t find any law in the Ten Commandments that prohibits slavery. There are no prophets of God that condemned it. The twelve Apostles are silent about its abolition.

Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of Jesus having said anything negative about the institution.

Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery — the owning of one person as a piece of property by another – is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery, but he wrote not one word of criticism.

Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal, which were profoundly evil — like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in “the Good Book” was lost — never to be fully regained.

Thanks to secular laws, we have today, we now abolished slavery. On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 4 states:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

I just wonder, why such law can’t be found in a book said to be inspired by a just God.

Clashes in Genesis

“In many cultures, it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must of course, ask next where God comes from.” - Carl Sagan (Cosmos p. 212)

Most Christians criticized the theory of evolution for being merely a theory, but not known to many, Christians can't even agree on what "creation process" they will believe in.

Different types of Christian Creation Process.

Q: Do All Christians agrees on the creative process?

Not all Christians believe in a single creative process. Interestingly, Evangelicals, Fundamentalist and Liberal Christians don’t agree with one another with respect to the original creative process.

The creative processes on Genesis are the following:
a.) Progressive Creation (Day-Age Theory)
b.) Gap Theory (Ruin-Reconstruction Theory)
c.) Theistic Evolution

Q: What is Progressive Creation?

Progressive Creation, AKA Old Earth creationism.

Progressive Creationists present God as doing many more creative miracles. That is, God creates the world in numerous progressive steps. That is why this belief is called "Progressive Creation" or "Process Creation." More commonly, some advocates of an old Earth, in an attempt to harmonize mainstream science with biblical literalism, hold that the six days referred to are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years); the Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of a progressive creation, or sometimes a summary of life's evolutionary history. This view is often called "Day-Age Creationism".

Although there is little widespread agreement among Progressive Creationists, they generally believe the following:

• The "Big Bang" is interpreted as God's way of producing stars and galaxies through billions-of-years of natural processes.
• The Earth and universe are billions of years old.
• The days of Creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.
• Death and bloodshed have existed from the very beginning of Creation and were not the result of Adam's sin.
• Man was created after the vast majority of earth's history of life and death had already taken place.
• The flood of Noah was local, not global, and it had little effect on the Earth's geology, which represents billions of years of history.

It is obvious then that Progressive Creationism is a belief which opposes both atheistic evolutionism and historic Christianity's understanding of biblical creationism. The teachings of Progressive Creationism are not new or original, but only recently have the views of Progressive Creationism received unprecedented wide and favorable publicity through Christian radio, television and magazines. Because Progressive Creationists often present their views as being based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, they have been invited to speak at numerous prominent evangelical churches, schools and ministries.

Another concern for many Christians is the Progressive Creationist belief that the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 can be legitimately understood as long, undefined periods of time.

Q: What is the Gap Theory?
According to the Gap Theory, Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of the heavens and the earth, but then there is a "gap" of millions or billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2:
Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Genesis 1:2: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

There are different variations of the Gap Theory, but there seems to be a common belief that there was a "pre-Adamite" race of people who lived on earth during this "gap," long before Adam and Eve were created.

In addition, there were many other forms of life on earth during this "gap," such as dinosaurs and other creatures and plants which have been found in the fossil record. The basic idea is that the fossil record and many of the geological changes which have taken place on the earth are remnants from this "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Since many scientists tell us that it would have taken millions of years for the fossil evidence and the geological evidence to have been formed, the Gap Theory seems to provide Christians with a way to fit these "geologic ages" into the Bible while still believing in the six literal days of Creation and while denying the theory of evolution.

The basic Gap Theory goes on to say that there was a cataclysm of some kind which killed all life on earth and which left the earth "without form and void" and completely covered with water, and this water is "the deep" over which the Spirit of God hovered in Genesis 1:2. Therefore, the Gap Theory says that the "six days of Creation" in Genesis are not actually six days of Creation, but rather they are six days of re-creation after the cataclysm which destroyed the earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. For this reason, this theory is sometimes referred to as the Ruin and Reconstruction Theory. People who believe this theory tend to speculate that the "great cataclysm" which ruined the earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was caused in some way by the devil being cast down out of heaven.

Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, was perhaps the man most responsible for the gap theory. (W.W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (Collinsville, IL: Burgeners Enterprises, 1976), p. 40.)

The idea can be traced back to the rather obscure writings of the Dutchman Episcopius (1583-1643), and was first recorded from one of Chalmers' lectures in 1814. Rev. William Buckland, a geologist, did much to popularize the idea.

Although Chalmers' writings give very little information about the gap theory, many of the details are obtained from other writers such as the 19th century geologist Hugh Miller, who quoted from Chalmers' lectures on the subject.

This ruin-reconstruction view is held by many who use Bible study aids such as the Scofield Reference Bible, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, and The Newberry Reference Bible.
The most notably influential 19th century writer to popularize this view was G.H. Pember, in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, first published in 1884. Numerous editions of this work were published, with the 15th edition appearing in 1942.

The 20th century writer who published the most academic defense of the gap theory was the renowned Canadian anthropologist, Arthur C. Custance. Custance produced Without Form and Void (1970), which many consider the ablest defense of the Gap Theory ever put into print.

The basic reason for developing and promoting the gap theory can be seen from the following very telling quotes:
Scofield Study Bible: Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.
Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: When men finally agree on the age of the earth, then place the many years (over the historical 6,000) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there will be no conflict between the Book of Genesis and science.

The above quotes are typical of the many compromise positions -- accepting so-called "science" and its long ages for the earth, and incorporating this into Scripture.

The Gap Theory has had, and continues to have, numerous supporters. George H. Pember, in Earth’s Earliest Ages (1876), advocated the Gap Theory. Harry Rimmer, in Modern Science and the Genesis Record (1937), helped popularize the theory. George DeHoff advocated the theory in Why We Believe the Bible (1944). 

J.D. Thomas, former chairman of the Bible Department at Abilene Christian University, has stated that “no man can prove that it is not true, at least in part” (1961, p. 54). The popular Scofield Reference Bible was first published in 1909; by 1917, it contained a reference to the Gap Theory in the footnotes accompanying Genesis 1. In more recent editions, references to the theory may be found as a footnote to Isaiah 45. John Clayton has accepted major portions of the Gap Theory, but has added to and deleted from the theory to produce what has come to be known as the Modified Gap Theory (see Clayton, 1976, pp. 147-148; Thompson, 1977, pp. 192-194; McIver, 1988, 8[3]:1-23; Jackson and Thompson, 1992, pp. 114-130).

Arguments Presented in Support of the Gap Theory
Advocates of the Gap Theory base their beliefs on several arguments, a summary of which is given here; comments and refutation follow.

Gap theorists suggest that the word bara (used in Genesis 1:1, 21, 27) must mean “to create” (i.e.: ex nihilo creation), while the word asah cannot mean “to create,” but rather means “to make.” Therefore, the original creation was “created”; the creation of the six days was “made” (i.e., “made over”).
Gap theorists suggest that the Hebrew verb hayetha (translated “was” in Genesis 1:2) should be rendered “became” or “had become”—a translation required in order to suggest a change of state from the original perfect creation of the chaotic conditions implied in verse 2.

Gap theorists believe that the “without form and void” of Genesis 1:2 (tohu wabohu) can refer only to something once in a state of repair, but now ruined. Pember accepted these words as expressing “an outpouring of the wrath of God.” Gap theorists believe that the cataclysm that occurred was on the Earth, and was the direct result of Satan’s rebellion against God. The cataclysm, of course, is absolutely essential to the Gap Theory. Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-17 are used as proof-texts to bolster the theory.

Gap theorists believe that Isaiah 45:18 (“God created the earth not in vain”—tohu; same word translated “without form” in Genesis 1:2) indicates that the Earth was not tohu at the initial creation. Therefore, they suggest, Genesis 1:2 can refer only to a judgment brought upon the Earth by God.
Gap theorists generally believe that there was a pre-Adamic creation of both non-human and human forms—a position adopted to account for the fossils present in the geologic strata.

C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945). (Originally published as The Scofield Reference Bible, this edition is unaltered from the original of 1909.)F.H. Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1961), p. 51.

Q: What is Theistic Evolution?
Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis. Theistic evolution believes that new species of animals develop from existing species over a very long interval of time, in response to the guidance, supervision, and intervention of a deity.

Famous theistic evolutionists included Asa Gray, Darwin's correspondent, and Henry Drummond, whose Ascent of Man was a popular apologetic work of the 1890s. Among modern proponents of theistic evolution are theologian John Haught and astronomer Howard J Van Till.

Book Burning

And I thought the NAZI Party started book burning, Alas! some group did it first.

Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. - Acts 19:19-20 (KJV)

Well, what can I say?
They suppose to read them, not burn them! 

The Bible - How It Came to Be

Bible vs. Bible

Christian defenders have always declare that all Bible is inspired by God.

According to the pages of the "good book", "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16)

19: We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any

private interpretation. 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." (2 Peter 1:19-21)

Really? Well read on.

*****

The "Dake's Bible"& Confused Charismatic Theology
by Joseph Chambers

Many years ago, I became leery of the Dake's Bible, but never really understood why. The only thing I could identify was that those who became strong in their study of Dake also became arrogant and unteachable. If Dake said it, then it really did not matter what anybody else said or what the general difference was in other Scriptures. I basically quit using the Dake's Bible about twenty years ago and simply put it on the shelf.

Finally, I am beginning to learn why the inspiration I experienced caused me to move away from Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. I never saw the deceptive quotes that I have recently discovered, probably because to begin with I never used it much. As I have now learned, the Dake's Bible was really the text of the Charismatics before there was a movement called "Charismatic." Let me give you one Scripture that is foundational to what Hagin, Copeland, Hinn, Crouch, etc. are now teaching around the world.

( According to this article, known evangelist use it like the late

Lester Sumrall and Benny Hinn.This Bible have helped form the

beliefs of many Pentecostal and Charismatic teachers on the scene

today. Dake was called a great Bible Scholar.~ John the Atheist )

This quote from Dake's Bible is the very first New Testament note in the edition that I have owned since the early seventies. The edition I am quoting from is the sixth printing, December 1971.

"Gr. Christos, `Anointed.' - Used in N.T. 577 times. Likethe name "Jesus" it has no reference to deity, but to the humanityof the Son of God, who became the Christ or the "Anointed One" 30years after He was born of Mary. God "made" Him both Lord andChrist. The Heb. Is `Messiah'." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible,Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc,Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 1.)

No Biblically solid minister or Bible student would accept the quote above. It is rank heresy and must be totally rejected or our view of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God is compromised. To suggest that Jesus became the Christ or the "Anointed One" thirty years after His birth is to commit heresy. This is an ancient heresy that is called "adoptionism." Kenneth Scott Latourette stated in his book, History of Christianity, Volume I, the following:

"Others, called the Ebionites, maintained that Jesus was

merely a man, a prophet, a spokesman for God, as were the great

Hebrew prophets of the past. Although some of them accepted the

virgin birth of Jesus, others are said to have taught that Jesus was

the son of Joseph and Mary, that at His baptism Christ descended

upon him in the form of a dove, that he then proclaimed the unknown

Father, but that Christ who could not suffer, departed from him at

his crucifixion." (Latourette, page 121-122, Harper Collins).

This is a dividing of the natures of Jesus Christ, rather than the established truth of the unity of His Son of God and Son of Man natures. He was both Son of God and Son of Man at every point in His incarnation. Iraneaus spoke of this in his book, Against Heresies And Knowledge Falsely So Called. He stated, "Certainly the Gnostics confess with their tongues the ONE Jesus Christ, but in their minds they divide Him." (Iraneaus; ADVERSUS Haeresies III.16.1). His two natures cannot be divided.

John R. Stott, in a commentary on the letters of John addressed this great truth. "We need therefore to find an interpretation of the phrase which makes water and blood both historical experiences which he passed and witnesses in some sense to his divine/human person. The . . . most satisfactory interpretation, first given by Tertullion does this. It takes water as reference to Baptism of Jesus, at which he was declared the Son and commissioned and empowered for His work, and blood to His death, in which His work was finished. True, `water' and `blood' remain strange and surprising word symbols, and we can only guess that they were thus used in the theological controversy which had engulfed the Ephesian church. At least this meaning of the expression tallies with what Iraneaus disclosed of the heretical teaching of Cerinthus and his followers. They distinguished between `Jesus' and `Christ'. They held that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary in natural wedlock, upon whom Christ descended at the baptism, and from which Christ departed at the cross. According to this theory of the false teachers, Jesus was united with the Christ at the baptism, but became separated again before the cross. It was to refute this fundamental error that John, knowing that Jesus was the Christ, before, and during the baptism and cross, described Him as `the one who came by water and blood'." (Tyndale NT Commentaries, LETTERS OF FIRST JOHN, J.R.W. Stott, pp. 180-181.)

The words of the angel to Mary should settle this subject completely. The Scripture stated, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35).

This is further emphasized in St. John's question of the Lord Himself, "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not." (John 10:36-37).

He is, and was, eternally the Son of God, anointed of the Holy Ghost. The doctrines of Hagin, Copeland, Crouch, and Hinn, etc. are clearly associated with this heresy. Paul Crouch, in a statement to Benny Hinn on TBN, stated that Jesus received His divinity back when He ascended out of hell after being born again.
(See our video, TBN – The Temple Of The Gods and Goddesses.)

As I write this article, I remember a horrible crisis that occurred about twenty years ago in the church where I now pastor. We had won a man to our church and he had made wonderful progress in the study of Scripture and his spiritual life. We elevated him to a very strong leadership position and made him a key teacher in our Sunday School. He then became involved in the Copeland doctrines and began to teach the doctrine of unbiblical prosperity. One day, he proudly began to argue to me that Jesus only became the anointed one at His baptism and was not the divine Son of God until this point. I immediately knew I had a serious problem.

When our church board met to solve the problem, we asked him to either renounce this idea or resign from his class. He refused and we dismissed him. Of course, he went up the road a short distance and started his own church. We lost a host of family members; all of which have never been stable in their Christian life since that time. I remember that the Dake's Bible had become his primary study Bible and the arrogance that I now know was evident in Finis Dake had become evident in this individual. He has never returned to the stability and truth that he traded for the Charismatic deception.

Facts About The Late Finis Dake My method in trying to protect the body of Christ from deception is to refrain from any personal attack on anyone, but to deal with doctrine and Biblical truth. It seems appropriate to note some matters that relate to Dake because they were certainly part of the shaping of his ministry. My concerns are documented with information on the web site owned by the Dake's Ministry or from others, who have researched his personal life.

On the Dake web site there is an article dedicated to Finis Dake himself prior to his death, in which he stated some very remarkable things. Mr. Dake states, "I was immediately able to quote hundreds of Scriptures without memorizing them. I also noticed a quickening of my mind to know what chapters and books various verses were found in. Before conversion, I had not read one full chapter of the Bible. This new knowledge of Scripture was a gift to me, for which I give God the praise. From the time of this special anointing until now, I have never had to memorize the thousands of Scriptures I use in teaching. I just quote a verse when I need it, by the anointing of the Spirit." (Webmasters Note: I believe that Jesus had to memorize the scriptures just like any man would.)

This is absolutely contrary to Scripture and puts Dake, at least in his mind, on the same level as the Lord Jesus Christ. Remember, the criticizers of Jesus Christ stated, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15). This would certainly give rise to him having an exalted opinion of himself and may have been one of the reasons for his arrogance. No Bible writer, Old Testament prophet, or New Testament apostle ever claimed such incredible ability. There is no Scripture to support this kind of gift by the Holy Ghost.

Research into Dake's background gives a picture of moral carelessness in his early ministry. Here is a lengthy quote by researcher, Les Brown.

"Finis Jennings Dake was born in 1902 and died in 1987. His son Finis, Jr. says it took Dake seven years of constant work to complete the 35,000 notes included in the 1,400-page Annotated Bible. It is a virtual systematic theology and a compilation of Dake's views and doctrines.

"Dake was ordained under the Assemblies of God in Texas. For a time he did evangelistic work in Oklahoma. He then moved to Zion, Illinois, where his fortunes declined, following a scandal involving a 16-year-old girl.

"The May 27, 1936, issue of the Chicago Daily Tribune reported that `An indictment, returned last February in Milwaukee, charges that on April 23, 1935, Dake took Emma Barelli, 16 years old, of Kenosha, from her home town to East St. Louis for immoral purposes.' (pg. 1). The following day, the newspaper reported that
Dake registered at hotels in Waukegan, Bloomington, and East St. Louis with the girl under the name Christian Anderson and wife. Dake, according to government investigators, said he picked the girl up as she was hitchhiking and she insisted he drive her to East St. Louis, where he was to deliver Bible lectures in nearby communities. Dake denied that any immoral action had taken place, claiming, `I did take her there . . .but there was no immorality involved. I wanted to get her a job.' (Chicago Daily Tribune, May 28, 1936, pg. 17).

"When Dake came to trial in February 1937, he placed himself on the mercy of the court by entering a plea of guilty to the charge of violating the Mann Act. He was sentenced to a six-month stay in the House of Corrections in Milwaukee. Dake admitted to having `petting parties' with the girl, but again denied any improper relations had occurred between him and the girl. The Waukegan News-Sun reported, `Had he been found guilty by a trial jury, Rev. Dake would have been subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years in a federal prison and a fine of $10,000.' (Feb. 10, 1937). Dake called the jail sentence a `vacation' and said he would use his incarceration as an opportunity to preach to the prisoners and devote time to writing a commentary on the Bible.

"The Assemblies of God severed its relationship with Dake, and he later joined the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee. It is not clear how his union with the Church of God ended, but Dake eventually became independent of any church."

Dake And Mormonism
There is an abundance of confusion in Dake's Bible and his other writings. None can be worse than the quote we started this expose' with, but other departures from truth certainly paint a picture of confusion. His teachings on God the Father that are found in his notes on the book of St. John are extremely revealing. Read these words carefully.

"He is a person with a personal spirit body, a personal soul, and a personal spirit, like that of angels, and like that of man except His body is out of spirit substance instead of flesh and bones.

"He has a personal spirit body; shape; form; image and likeness of a man. He has bodily parts such as, back parts, heart, hands and fingers, mouth, lips and tongue, feet, eyes, ears, hair, head, face, arms, loins, and other bodily parts.

"He has bodily presence and goes from place to place in a body like all other persons.

"He has a voice; breath; and countenance. He wears clothes; eats; rests; dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called Heaven; sits on a throne; walks; rides; engages in other activities.

"He has a personal soul with feelings of grief; anger; repentance; jealousy; hate; love; pity; fellowship; pleasure and delight; and other soul passions like other beings.

"He has a personal spirit with mind; intelligence; will; power; truth; faith and hope; righteousness; faithfulness; knowledge and wisdom; reason; discernment; immutability; and many other attributes, powers, and spirit faculties." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, pp. 96-97.)

I presume this is where Kenneth Copeland got his Mormon doctrine of God being about 6'2" tall and weighing about 220 pounds, with a hand span of nine inches. Also, Benny Hinn is reported to have applied his teaching on "Nine numbers in the Godhead" to Dake's Bible. He later confessed that error and said he was joking with his congregation.

Such ideas about God have no relevance in the Scripture, although Dake gives multiple quotes to back up this doctrinal commentary.

Dake Limits God's Eternal Omnipotence
Here is an unbelievable commentary that is given within the story of Abraham and his visit by the pre-incarnate Christ. He suggests that God did not know what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah and came to find out. "Here we have another proof that God receives knowledge of true conditions and becomes acquainted with existing facts. This plainly teaches that God, as well as men and angels, is limited to one place as far as the body is concerned. The doctrine of omnipresence of God can be proved, but not His omnibody. In His body He goes from place to place like other persons. Abraham stood yet before the bodily presence of God, but not before the bodily presence of the 2 angels because they went to Sodom and were no longer bodily present." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, Old Testament, p. 15.)

It is totally unacceptable to limit God, who is unlimited. He is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. (Hmmmmm...here's the incoherent attributes of the god-concept again ~ JA) Dake's confusion arises from identifying this Divine visitor as God the Father, instead of a pre-Incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our God (another type of Christian god-concept ~ JA) has certainly manifested Himself to different servants, but not His Divine essence. The writer in the New Testament stated plainly, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John
1:18).

Dake gets around this by saying, "Our English `seen' means to see with the eyes and also see with the mind. That it means here to comprehend fully or understand is clear from the fact that many men have seen God with the eyes. The verse could read, `No man has ever comprehended or experienced God at any time in all His fulness, save the only begotten Son…He hath declared Him.'" (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 93.)

The False Concept Of "Little Gods"
Dake not only was confused about the omnipotence of God, but he also taught that man was a miniature of God. In conjunction with Dake's commentary on the Book of Job, he wrote about the idea called anthropomorphism. Under that heading, he said some strange things. "Anthropomorphism is the ascription of human bodily parts, attributes, and passions to God, and taking the substantiating statements of Scripture to be literal, and not figurative. In support of such teaching an appropriate question is: If God did not mean all He said about Himself in over 20,000 scriptures then why did He say such things? They certainly do not add to a true understanding of Him if the passages do not mean what they say. Furthermore, why would God, in hundreds of places, refer to Himself as having bodily parts, soul passions, and spirit faculties if He does not have them? Would it be necessary for Him to tell us He has such in order to reveal that He does not have them? Would He not be more likely to say in plain language that He does not have eyes, hands, mouth, ears, and other bodily members?" (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, Old Testament, p. 547.)

His entire statement above seems childlike and basically ignorant of the revelation of Holy Scripture. Why would someone reduce God down to the level of men just because God speaks of Himself with words on our level? That is God's method throughout Scripture when He uses our language to convey His eternal truth. Because God said, "I saw you," does not mean His eyes are limited to human shape and size. The Bible said emphatically, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24).

From this false concept, it is natural to move directly to the next step. If God is man-like, then man must be god-like. Under the same heading as above, Dake wrote about our god-like state. "Truly He is not only all that man, angels, and other beings are in this respect, but infinitely greater in everything; and man, in reality, is simply a miniature of God in attributes and powers." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, Old Testament, p. 587.)

This statement by Dake does not go as far as saying what is now being promoted by modern Charismatic leaders, but he does lay the foundation. His promoting of God as a man with all the human attributes, combined with the idea of us as miniature Gods, has been stretched to the present deception of men as "little gods."

Dake Carries The Idea Of Christ Emptying Himself To A Dangerous
Extreme 

The Son of God did indeed empty Himself to become the Son of man. What is extremely important is that this emptying was not a forsaking of His eternal essence, but an emptying of manifesting that essence. He was never void of His divine essence, but He did limit Himself not to express them while depending wholly on His Father and the Holy Spirit. Dake either did not understand the above or he willingly rejected it. Here are some of his statements on the subject: "Christ emptied Himself of His authority in heaven and in earth, which was given back to Him after the resurrection." "Christ emptied Himself of His divine attributes and
outward powers that He had with the Father from eternity. He had no power to do miracles until He received the Holy Spirit in all fullness. He could do nothing of Himself in all His earthly life. He attributed all His works, doctrines, powers, etc. to the Father through the anointing of the Holy Spirit." "Isaiah speaks of the Messiah being born without knowledge enough to know to refuse the evil and choose the good." "Isaiah predicted that the Messiah would be born without the tongue of the learned, without knowing how to speak a word in season to help any soul, and that He would be wakened day by day to increase in knowledge and wisdom." "He did not claim the attributes of God, but only the anointing of the Spirit to do His works." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 218.)

http://www.scionofzion.com/dakes.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------

WOAH!!!! Now Christian Bible interpretations vs. Another Christian's Bible interpretation. That's not new. Christian always accuse other Christians of "false teaching,"  but if all of them accuse each one of being false, where the heck is the true one? Hmmmm....I am now having an idea why Jesus never answered Pilate when he was asked, "What is the truth?"

As I have said, "In speaking about Bible interpretations, I notice that everytime a person defended the holy scripture, it is not the scripture he is defending but the credibility of the man who interprets it for him."

Astalabye-bye!

Bible Prophecy - The Atheist's Nightmare???

According to this site: From Atheist 2 Christ that I found lurking in the dark ceresses of the information highway, Fulfillment of bible prophecies are usually obvious and are always 100 percent accurate. In fact, it proudly stated in the Bible on Deuteronomy 18:22 - "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

So, are their readers aware that there are alot of unfullfilled prophecies in the Bible? Ahah! another case of apologists and Bible thumpers habitual lying eh? By the Bible's own testimony, we can see that it's not God inspired as what Deuteronomy 18:22 have just said.

1. According to Isa 19:5, Eze 30:12, and Zec 10:11, the Nile River will dry up, and according to Eze 29:9-12, Egypt will become desolate for 40 years, with no man or animal passing through it and with all Egyptians dispersed, but as a matter of fact the Nile River has never dried up and in the whole history of Egypt no such calamitous events have ever occurred.

2. Isaiah noted that Babylon would be destroyed by God. He would cause the Medes to lead a coalition of nations against the city, destroying it in bloody warfare. This event would secure the release of God's people from their oppressors (Isa 13:1-22; 14:22). - The city of Babylon has through the ages been occupied to some degree contra the ravings of the prophets. It was a capital under the Persians for a time. Later it surrendered to Alexander the Great (ca. 332 BCE) -again, peacefully- and was spared any harm. The city eventually passed in Parthian hands and dwellings of the Parthian occupation have been found. Then it passed in Sassanian hands, whose ruins have also been documented. Then it passed into Arab hands, whose presence is documented until the 11th or 12 century CE. When Koldeway arrived in Babylon to excavate it on behalf of the German Oriental Society (1880's- 1917) he made a map of the site, which shows several Arab settlements within the walls of the ancient city. He called them Dorf Ananeh, Dorf Dschumdschuma, Dorf Kweiresch, and Dorf Sindschar (cf. map of Babylon on p. 12. Robert Koldewey. Das wieder erstehende Babylon. [Herausgegeben Barthel Hrouda]. Munchen. Verlag C. H. Beck. 1990. ISBN 3-406-31674-3). Much of the city has been turned into Date-palm plantations and these plantations are serviced by the villagers near and in Babylon. So, contra the prophets, Babylon was never really abandoned "forevermore".

3. Matthew 24:34: "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place."Yet it did not happen. And that generation has long passed away. Prophecy unfulfilled and time is long up.

4. On Joshua 1:3-5 God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land.

5. Joshua tells the Israelites that God will "without fail" drive out the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But later, the Bible tells us that he could not drive them out. Joshua 3:10 vs. Judges 1:19, Judges 1:21.

6. It was said that, after being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, Tyre would never be rebuilt and would never be found again (Eze 26:14,21, 27:36, 28:19). But in the NT, Tyre still survives.

21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." (Matt. 15:21)
3After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we sailed on to Syria. We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo.
(Acts 21:3).

7. Jer 34:5 prophesied that Zedekiah will die in peace, but according to 2Ki 25:7 and Jer 52:10-11, that did not happen. Instead, he saw his sons killed, was carried off in chains, blinded, and eventually died in prison.

8. Amon 7:17 prophesied that Amaziah's sons will die by the sword, but according to 2Ch 26:1,21, Amaziah's son Uzziah died of leprosy.

9. According to Gen. 15:18, 17:3,8, and Dt. 1:7-8, Abraham's descendants will own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River, but it never happened: they never owned all that land. God broke his promise, as conceded in Ac 7:5 and Heb 11:13.

10. Many verses prophesy that the throne of David will endure forever and that there will never be a time without a man upon that throne. But in point of historical fact, the Davidic line of kings ended with Zedekiah. 450 yrs. later, the Maccabeans had a brief reign. But for 2000 years, there has been no Davidic king.

11. According to Isa 52:1, the uncircumcised and unclean will never enter Jerusalem, but in fact such people have continually entered Jerusalem for thousands of years.

I highly recomend PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by Farrell Till. You'll be suprise how inacurrate is the Bible on the issues of prophecies. I also like to recommend When Prophecies Fail - A Sociological Perspective on Failed Expectation in the Watchtower Society. 

Strange Christian Logic...

I found this picture on the Internet and this made me think...

How can an atheist be made in the image and likeness of Satan and his devils? Has the "naked pastor" not read in his Bible that even demons believe--and shudder (James 2:19)?

:)

The Fool

Are you familiar with the Psalms 14:1? Well, most atheists are quite familiar with the said verse, thanks to the Christians who always use this verse to label those who don’t believe in the Christian god-concept.

In case you don’t know this verse, let me refresh you.

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.

1

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

There!

Well, just by reading this verse, now you’ll know why a lot of Christian believers use this passage to atheists. It is quite an entertainment to call an atheist a fool.

But does this verse really say atheists are fools? At first glance it seems that way. But looks can be deceiving.

If you will read the Bible, you’ll notice that the issue of atheism was not really tackled. There are neither characters nor situations in the Bible that focuses on non-believers. Heck! Even the devil believes in God. Nonbelief is not a threat in the Hebrew God, he’s more concern of people worshiping another god (Remember he’s a jealous God).

But most Christians still believe that this verse means atheism, so they still insist that the “fool” described in this verse means an atheist.

Really? Let’s see.

Psalm 14 was written for the choir leader of the temple. So it is safe to say it is addressed to him. The word “The” is a definite article, a determiner that indicates the specificity of reference. So we are talking about a certain type of a PERSON who said in HIS heart that there is no God. This PERSON is specified as a fool. VIOLA! An atheist! Not so quite.

This person hath said in his heart. Remember the author use the word heart as a metaphor. The word heart in biblical scripture is variously used, sometimes means the mind and understanding, sometimes for the will, sometimes for the affections, sometimes for the conscience, sometimes for the whole soul. Generally, it denotes the whole soul of man and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing of good and evil." It sometimes mean as “human nature”.

Now this is more of a “let us choose the right word”. If the fool will say in his mind “That there is no God”, then obviously he’s an atheist. Wait a minute there! An atheist is a person who is not a theist RIGHT! So he doesn’t believe in a god or gods. The Bible is very specific about this, he who doesn’t believe in Elohim. Now let us examine the following sentence: They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. So here the word “heart” just doesn’t mean the mind, since proclaiming the whole shebang doesn’t make the whole person corrupt. We’re talking something bigger here. So I choose human nature as the nearest translation, since human nature is the complete psychological human attributes. So this is not about what’s on his understandings, but rather more on the whole of his individuality.

So, according to this verse, the fool is corrupt, they do abominable works and there is none that doeth good. The word fool is translated in Hebrew as “nabhal”. Apart from the Wisdom literature, we find nabhal frequently translated "fool" and nebhalah, "folly"; nabhal, however, it also denotes a wicked person, an evil character, "shamelessly immoral," equivalent to "a son of Belial" (Cheyne), rather than a merely "foolish" person, and nebhalah, "wickedness," "shameless impropriety," rather than simple folly. In the Chokhmah or Wisdom literature, which, within the Bible, is contained in Job, Proverbs (especially), Ecclesiastes, some Psalms and certain portions of the prophetic writings, "fool" and "folly" are frequent and distinctive words. Their significance is best seen in contrast with "Wisdom."

So does the fool in the said verse means lacking knowledge? If we use knowledge on the verse, it sounds like a person who in his knowledge accepted that Elohim doesn’t exist is a vile person. Such statement proves a very bias and short-sightedness in the part of the Psalter.

In Matthew 5:3 Jesus said that those who are “poor in spirit” (Poor means lacking off, spirit connotes to wisdom or knowledge) will have the kingdom of heaven. Another thing, Jesus has called the Pharisees as fools (Mt 23:17, 19). The Pharisees were religious leaders in their day and it’s quite strange to say that these religious leaders don’t have any knowledge about the Elohim? So then, using the word lacking knowledge about God seems not to fit.

So let’s choose the word “vile” or wicked person to replace the word fool. We are now talking about a specific person, an immoral person. Hmmmm…let see: An immoral person declares in his very nature, “There is no Elohim.” They (the immoral people) are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Hmmmm…this makes more sense, isn’t it? The Psalter is not talking about non-believers; he’s talking about wicked people!

Now let us the following verse: 2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? Who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD. 5There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

If you’ll notice this verse, the Psalter was talking about certain knowledge. Is this about the knowledge of the existence of Elohim? Does the absence of knowledge of the existence of a certain community god automatically mean the absence of morality? Or is it talking about a certain knowledge that makes a person seeks God? Remember that this verse is talking about a certain understanding that makes a person seek the Elohim. According to Psalms 119, “Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.  They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways. You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed. Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees! Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands.  I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws. I will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me.” (Psalms 19:1-8)

So for the Psalter, The Law is the instruction in the knowledge of God and of men's relation to Him. To seek the Elohim is to obey his laws.

So there it is folks!

Psalm 14:1-5 is not about atheists being fools, but about people in the time of King David, who lost interest in the laws of their god. Who perverted the Laws (they are called workers of iniquity. Iniquity means, "The condition of one without law", therefore it is safely to say that they perverted the interpretations of the Law), influences other people to disobey the Torah and have stopped to call or accept the God of Israel.

Hope that clears the “fool” issue.

Respect and Silence

Luke Skywalker: "But... I can't get involved with anything like that..."

 Ben "Obi-Wan" Kenobi: "Remember, Luke, the suffering of one man's the suffering of all. Distances are irrelevant to injustice. If not stopped soon enough, evil eventually reaches out to engulf all men, whether they have opposed it or ignored it."

There are atheists out there who prefer to sit on the side bench, and watch the parade go by.These atheists prefer to call themselves as “agnostics." Unlike the true agnostics, these atheists just want to be identified as agnostics simply because they don’t want to be labeled with the “A” word. For them, the term atheist signifies militancy, intolerance or worst.

Reasons for this moderation vary, but the one rationale I always heard is that we (as atheists) should respect other people’s belief – that includes the religious belief.

In his book, The End of Faith, Sam Harris devoted pages on religious moderates. I think he should also include moderate atheists in that chapter. Anyway, just like their god fearing counterparts (the moderate believers), these moderate non-believers believe that atheists and pious people should learn to respect the belief and non-belief of others. 

In other words, mutual respect. Now, is there such a thing called “mutual respect” between a God believer and a “godless” person?

Personally, I find some Christians (Catholic or Protestant) friendly. I have theists’ friends, but that’s it. We prefer to talk about politics or trivial stuffs. Even so, we never talk about religious beliefs.

Now, try opening the Bible and read Psalms 14:1. How about reading Psalm 53: 1-6, Romans 1: 18-32 and Romans 3: 10-18. It that what you call "mutual respect?"

Ah, so as an atheist it is OK for me to respect the idea that I will be burning in hell because I don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I am destitute of reason or of the common powers of understanding because I don't believe God exists, or I am corrupt, wicked and vile, right?

I think what these moderate atheists should do is to read some religious scriptures and try to figure out for themselves what these “faiths” have to say about the faithless.

In Islam for example, atheists are known as Kafir. The word Kafir is derived from the Arabic term Kafara which means to "to cover up or hide something." So a kafir is a person who covers up and hides the truth. For those who believe in Islam, the word Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A Kafir, or disbeliever, will be punished for eternity in the fire of hell. 

Try reading the following in the Qur’an so you will know how  these Muslims really look at atheists: 40:35, 83:34, 25:77, 47:4, 6:25, 86:15, 6:111, 23:97, 37:18 and 8:12. Furthermore, take note: A Muslim is not the friend of a kafir - 3:28. Believers should not take kafir as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him. So, when they say “ respect”, does that mean I cannot even criticize their ideas. That I should just shut my trap and let these God believers proselytize his faith, his archaic philosophy, his twisted science, his wanton disregard to the other person’s ideas? 

Respect huh?

April's Fools

In a 2010 Psychology Today article by Nigel Barber, Ph.D., “Why Atheism Will Replace Religion.”makes the case that there are “strong correlations between atheism and intelligence” as cultures develop.

According to Dr. Barber, “Belief in God declines in more developed countries and is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%.” (See also, Zuckerman 2007) Dr. Barber continues: “The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs." (Barber, 2010)

So why are atheists being connected to April Fools Day?

First how April 1 did become known as a Day of Fools? Traditionally, eh no one knows, but some attribute the day to Pope Gregory XIII and his calendar.

Now, since Christians have used this day as a mockery to atheists as their “holiday” well let’s give them what they want. Christians have been labeling atheists as fools because of that verse… Psalms 14:1. You know…"The FOOL saidth in his heart there is No God." Even though the word “fool” in this verse is an English translation of the Hebrew word “nabal” which means morally inferior NOT intellectually inferior.

Contrary to popular Christian belief, there is no real fact that says God-believers are more morally upright than those who don’t believe in God. But still an atheist is a fool.

The New Testament is more blunt. According to the one who wrote the Book of Romans, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:20)

In other words, we become fools for not believing, for lacking faith to believe that their invisible God is the creator of the whole universe. This doesn’t signify an immoral person, but a stupid one. Just because someone doesn’t believe his god, he is now considered a dullard. But why give a damn about what the religious fanatics in Jerusalem believe anyway. I am more connected to Athens. Doubt has brought me closer to knowledge than religious faith.

Dinosaurs in the Bible? You got to be kidding me?

“If you can’t beat them, join them”. I think that what's on the mind of these Bible apologists when they say that you can find some references about dinosaurs in the pages of their “holy book”.

First when paleontologists discover the existence of dinosaur fossils, Christians retorted by saying that these bones were placed by Satan to deceive us to believe that dinosaur exist. Well, so far so good. When people didn’t buy this cockeyed explanation, some Christian sect made stories that say God created the dinosaur together with human beings, and what best reference they can show other than what was written in their “Holy Bible”.

The Behemoth

According to Christians, the Book of Job is the evidence that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible… Hmmm let us see.

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him . Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. (Job 40:15-24 KJV)

Isn't that great or what. Lo and behold, Job is talking about a sauropod, a Brachiosaurus. Yeah, right…

A sauropod fossil

Most Christians believe that the Behemoth in the Book of Job is a dinosaur. Many Young Earth Creationists propose that the Behemoth is a sauropod. But why are these guys’ compares the Behemoth to a dinosaur? It can mean anything? Well, let us see.  According to these Christians, Job 40:15-24 is definitely talking about a dinosaur.

1. he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly – So the Behemoth eats grass! Yep, and a dinosaur eat grass.

But so does a hippo and an elephant. Dinosaurs don’t eat grass like an ox. They were wholly incapable of chewing their food at all. Their jaws can only move up and down like the jaws of a crocodile, not in a circular pattern like the jaws of a cow. They ate vegetation by grasping the food with the teeth, and pulled away with the head, thereby "raking" the leaves in the mouth. In order to "chew" the food they swallowed, they had to swallow stones (called "gastroliths") that traveled through the necks and into the gizzard area. There, the stones help to grind their food by mashing plant matter into a digestible pulp with the help of special muscles found inside of the gizzards. Oh, and did I forgot to tell you that sauropods were tree-browsers.

 2. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

 Well… since a behemoth “has a tail that is exactly like a cedar tree” it must be a dinosaur. Good grief! Guys, can you read this verse again. It doesn’t say that a behemoth’s tail is like a cedar tree, it says that its tail move like a cedar. That means that it does not necessarily pointing towards the size of the tail, it only speaks about the motion pattern. It’s just saying that the behemoth’s tail moved like the branches of a cedar tree in the wind.

 In the New International Version (NIV), the verses in question are translated as the following:

"What strength he has in his loins; what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar, the sinews of his thighs are close-knit..."

This version could indicate that the animal moved parts of the loin-region, such as the phallus, around aggressively, whether in heat or not. Following the symbolism of strong, well-functioning phalli being a metaphor for masculine courage, the verses continue to demonstrate the behavior and dependence on God of the creature, indicating the humility of a creature that would appear to have no need for humility.

 3. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him .

That means anyone, approaching the creature, must arm himself with raw firepower; any weapon needed to kill this vicious monstrosity, including a sword. We are not talking about a creature dated back between 70 and 65 million years ago. We’re talking about some modern African animal, like a hippopotamus, a highly dangerous animal that has been said to kill humans more than any other dangerous animal in Africa.

4. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

The rest of the passage refers to Behemoth being a large amphibious mammal. Sauropods, on the other hand would not enjoy being stuck, bogged down, and up to their armpits in mud, mire, and water all the time and, in other cases, be drowned in their own tissue while standing in deep water.

Hippopotamus

The writer of Job is not talking about dinosaurs here. The New Living Translation says that it's a hippopotamus. In the original Hebrew, the word behemoth is of Egyptian origin. According to the Easton Bible Dictionary, "Some have supposed this to be an Egyptian word meaning a "water-ox." The Revised Version has here in the margin "hippopotamus," which is probably the correct rendering of the word. The hippopotamus is truly a wild animal that "eateth grass like an ox," can never be tamed, and makes his home in the swamps, lakes, and rivers of Africa. They were once common in the Middle East, especially in Egypt, but were not seen anymore in that area due to them being hunted down for their ivory teeth, meat, and hide by humans.

The Leviathan

Another dinosaur “wannabee” in the Bible is the Leviathan.

The word "Leviathan" appears six times in the Bible:

1. Isaiah 27:1: "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

2. Psalms 74:14: "Thou didst crush the heads of the Leviathan, thou didst give him for food to the creatures of the desert." NIV

3. Psalms 104:25,26: "O Lord, how manifold thy works, in wisdom you have created them all. So is this great and wide sea... there go the ships and the Leviathan which you have created to play therein" (AV);

4. Book of Job 3:8 "May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan "; (NIV )

5. Book of Job 40: 24-32, 41:1-24: "Can you draw out a Leviathan with a hook or press down its tongue with a cord? Canst thou put a hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a bridle ring? Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft words to thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? To take him for thy servant forever? Will thou play with him as with a bird? Or wilt thou bind him for thy girls? Will the tradesmen heap up payment for him?... Lay thy hand upon him, thou will no more think of fighting. Behold the hope of him is in vain, shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?...Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is near to the another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his [sneezing] a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth....His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone....He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble....He maketh the deep to boil like a pot....he is a king over all the children of pride."

According to Duane Gish, the Leviathan is a dinosaur, some sort of a Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus, or a plesiosaur such as Koronosaurus. Yet how he forgotten that the Leviathan appears also in the Ugaritic texts, where it is described as a twisting serpent. In Canaanite mythology and literature, it is a monster called Lotan, 'the fleeing serpent, the coiling serpent with the seven heads'. It was eventually killed by Baal. The Leviathan is also the Ugaritic god of evil.

Koronosaurus

In Psalms 74:14 it also says that the Leviathan has many heads (14Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.)

Also, let us not forget the following descriptions:

A.) Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

B.) Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

C.) His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth

Gosh! These descriptions sound like more of one of those Kaiju from a Japanese 1960’s monster show… like those Godzilla movies. Dinosaurs don’t have such abilities. The gentle Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus doesn’t shoot fire from their mouth. Also, there were no sailing ships of the time when sea reptiles known as pliosaurs ruled the seas.

Let me point out… the Bible is neither modern nor scientific. It was written in a poetical, ancient and mythological manner. So I hope Christian fundies should use their brain often and should try to distinguish facts from fables.

Until next time,

John the Atheist