Paul Bashing Thread

[Paul]

Quoting exnihilo from 02:40, 14th Apr 2005
How can I say definitively? I can't. But far wiser heads than mine, people who have made this their lives' work are of the opinion that the books of Moses are the works of several scribes, written down at a later date.

Having studied Higher Criticsm, I am aware of these fancies - and that is a considered opinion after intensive sudy over several years. Neither is it mine alone:

There is the evidence from a (secular) archaelogist - William G. Dever - that the writings of the Old Testament, at least from the 13th century B.C - the time of the Judges - are contemporary of the period in which the events occurred. For a review of his book What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?, 2001, see: http://stromata.tripod.com/id279.htm

And for those of you who hold to the "revisionist" theories of the New Testament, here is a quotation from a book written by a New Testamnet scholar who actually set out to write a satire of the idea that the New Testament had been written early:

There is a world - I do not say a world in which all scholars live but one at any rate into which all of them sometimes stray, and which some of them seem permanently to inhabit - which is not the world in which I live. In my world, if The Times and The Telegraph both tell one story in somewhat different terms, nobody concludes that one of them must have copied the other, nor that the variations in the story have some esoteric significance.

But in that world of which I am speaking this would be taken for granted. There, no story is ever derived from facts but always from somebody else's version of the same story... In my world, almost every book, except some of those produced by Government departments, is written by one author. In that world almost every book is produced by a committee, and some of them by a whole series of committees. In my world, if I read that Mr. Churchill, in 1935, said that Europe was heading for a disastrous war, I applaud his foresight. In that world no prophecy, however vaguely worded, is ever made except after the event. In my world we say, 'The first world-war took place in 1914-1918.' In that world they say, 'The world-war narrative took shape in the third decade of the twentieth century.' In my world men and women live for a considerable time - seventy, eighty, even a hundred years - and they are equipped with a thing called memory. In that world (it would appear) they come into being, write a book, and forthwith perish, all in a flash, and it is noted of them with astonishment that they 'preserve traces of primitive tradition' about things which happened well within their own adult lifetime.

From John Who Saw, by A. H. N Green-Armytage, 1952, 12f. Quoted in Redating the New Testament, John A. T. Robinson, 1976.

John Robinson was a liberal Anglican bishop who began this book as, "a theological joke": "I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70", the year in which the Roman army sacked and burned the Temple of Jerusalem.

He got much further than he expected. See: http://stromata.tripod.com/id119.htm


For further information on early dating of the New Testament writings see: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html

Quoting exnihilo from 02:40, 14th Apr 2005Even if that were not so, it is generally accepted that Moses wrote the Torah down towards the end of his life, having preserved the parshiot orally until then. (Consider also the nature of the Torah, written without vowels or punctuation - knowledge of how to read it was passed along orally, until written down later.)

It is also the case that Judaism acknowledges an "oral Torah" which is incorporated later in such writings as the Gemara and Midrash (the Midrash was handed down orally from Moses himself until written in the 2nd Century CE). You will also note that the Great Assembly following the Babylonian Exile, under Ezra, made a number of changes to the text of the Tanakh, and therefore to the modern Bible - largely interpretation necessitated by the dearth of earlier scrolls and based, therefore, on memory.

As for your statement regarding the "discovery" of the Torah in the Temple, you should be aware that it was, traditionally, only one of 13 Torah scrolls written by Moses. I in no sense dispute there was writing in the time of Moses as you seem to suggest - I point out again that I am an historian - all I say is that there is strong evidence that Moses did not act as a scribe for direct dictation from God and that much of his teaching was preserved orally for a time.

Finally, while we're on the subject of reading the Torah/Tanakh, here are four rules that are employed to aid the reader in knowing when to read the text as literal and when as allegorical. It is allegorical:

1. Where the plain meaning is rejected by common experience.
2. Where it is repudiated by obvious logic.
3. Where it is contradicted by obvious scripture.
4. Where it is opposed by clear Talmudic tradition.

To cite Torah without Talmudic assistance is to miss the point of the book, even Christ was aware of that. It cannot be taken as a standalone and the be all and end all. As a basis for the New Testament what is referred to as the Old Testament is incomplete without the associated documents, indeed many of the internal contradictions are only reconciled in the oral traditions of Talmud and Midrash.

You are right - Christ was aware of it - and I will quote what he had to say about it shortly.

First, it is necessary to state, that, in this, Judaism is no different from Romanism. They both require additional authority to interpret the Scriptures. The name for this "authority" is tradition as you correctly identify above - "the oral traditions of Talmud and Midrash".

So here is Christ:

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
...
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. - Mark 7:6-9, 13

And remember the commandment in the Torah:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. - Deuteronomy 4:2

Finally, I have a request.

You have stated that there are many "internal contradictions" in the Bible. Please give me just three examples.

[exnihilo]

Thank you for demonstrating, once more, that you do not read what other people post. You will note if you go back and READ that I referred to the Books of Moses, to then cite Judges is to demonstrate one of two things: one, a complete lack of knowledge or two, a complete lack of regard for fact. Either way, I note thay you fail utterly to respond to the points I raise.

Not one word of the Talmud contradicts or replaces the Law in the Tanakh. The Talmud aids understanding of the Tanakh and is CONTEMPORARY with it, it is not some later document, they developed side by side. Again, I say this demonstrates a lack of knowledge in this area. Judaism is based on a written and an oral tradition - of equal pedigree.

Internal contradictions in the Bible; where do I start? The "new testament" specifically and flagrantly contradicts the Tanakh, and it does so on the assumption that Christ has the authority to overturn the Law of God, and the only "evidence" that anyone has for this is that the new testament says so. Need I say more?

However, as you'll say that that is me weaselling out of the question, here are a few (I'll refrain from the obvious derision I could heap on the Hellenistic Paul of Tarsus): look to Exodus 20:13 and how it compares to 32:27. One says thou shalt not kill the other enjoins us to do just that. Next I ask you to look at Leviticus 25:45-46 and compare the keeping of slaves to Isaiah 58:6 where we are instructed to break every yoke. Thirdly, it was three, right? Exodus 20:5 tells us that the sins of the father shall be visited unto the fourth generation, whereas Ezekiel 18:20 says they will not be visited even unto the next.

You will note that I have cited only from the Tanakh to the Tanakh. It's a lot easier to find Tanakh to new testament contradictions, alas, I'm not at home and don't have my Tanakh in front of me, so I've had to work from memory.

[Guest]

I saw Jesus.

What could this possibly mean???????

[rae]

I just had to put up my favourite biblical contradiction - Genesis, where in a matter of lines we learn that Eve was in fact created in two different ways. nice!

[hr]

In America they think 100 years is old and in Britain they think 100 miles is far.

[Paul]

Quoting exnihilo from 07:19, 17th Apr 2005
Thank you for demonstrating, once more, that you do not read what other people post. You will note if you go back and READ that I referred to the Books of Moses, to then cite Judges is to demonstrate one of two things: one, a complete lack of knowledge or two, a complete lack of regard for fact. Either way, I note thay you fail utterly to respond to the points I raise.

I cited internal evidence from the Torah earlier, and used the secular evidence to show that such existed.

Here is some more.

Ebla tablets: 17,000 tablets from Tell Mardikh (Northern Syria), dating from 2300 B.C., shows us that a thousand years before Moses, laws, customs and events were recorded in writing in that part of the world, and that the judicial proceedings and case laws were very similar to the Deuteronomy law code (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:22-30 codes on punishment for sex offenses). One tablet mentions and lists the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar in the exact sequence which we find in Genesis 14:8! Until these tablets were uncovered the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah had always been in doubt by historians.

Quoted from: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibdoc.htm - one page from an interesting comparison between the Bible and the Koran.

][s]Quoting exnihilo from 07:19, 17th Apr 2005
Not one word of the Talmud contradicts or replaces the Law in the Tanakh. The Talmud aids understanding of the Tanakh and is CONTEMPORARY with it, it is not some later document, they developed side by side. Again, I say this demonstrates a lack of knowledge in this area. Judaism is based on a written and an oral tradition - of equal pedigree.

The pedigree is most definitely not equel. The Tanakh is the Word of God - the Talmud is the word of man.

There are clear commands which warn against adding to the Word of God, such as "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." - Deuternonmy 4:2

One merely has to look at the dietary laws to see the ridiculous extent to which man has added to the command "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." - Deuteronomy 14:21. Nowhere is there any mention of using two different sets of crockery for milk and meat - and a third set just for passover.

This is what the Lord Jesus Christ had to say about such traditions:

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. - Mark 7:6-13

[Paul]

Quoting exnihilo from 07:19, 17th Apr 2005
Internal contradictions in the Bible; where do I start? The "new testament" specifically and flagrantly contradicts the Tanakh, and it does so on the assumption that Christ has the authority to overturn the Law of God, and the only "evidence" that anyone has for this is that the new testament says so. Need I say more?

Yes, you need to cite specific examples, and not make an unfounded generalisation!

[exnihilo]

Read back. I cited examples. Indeed, I did so in the paragraph right after the one you quoted, yet, once again you ignored them. As you tend to do with every argument made against you. Odd that.

I'll quote myself to spare you the effort of reading all four of my previous paragraphs....

Quoting exnihilo from 07:19, 17th Apr 2005
However, as you'll say that that is me weaselling out of the question, here are a few (I'll refrain from the obvious derision I could heap on the Hellenistic Paul of Tarsus): look to Exodus 20:13 and how it compares to 32:27. One says thou shalt not kill the other enjoins us to do just that. Next I ask you to look at Leviticus 25:45-46 and compare the keeping of slaves to Isaiah 58:6 where we are instructed to break every yoke. Thirdly, it was three, right? Exodus 20:5 tells us that the sins of the father shall be visited unto the fourth generation, whereas Ezekiel 18:20 says they will not be visited even unto the next.

Incidentally, Torah is the word of God, Tanakh is only so in part. You really need to pay more attention.

[Paul]

Quoting exnihilo from 10:01, 1st May 2005
Read back. I cited examples. Indeed, I did so in the paragraph right after the one you quoted, yet, once again you ignored them. As you tend to do with every argument made against you. Odd that.

Actually, I was dealing with the points you raised in the order which you raised them. I have every intention of adressing the examples you mentioned later. Can you not come up with any concrete examples of confilct bewteen the New and Old Testaments.?

Quoting exnihilo from 10:01, 1st May 2005
Incidentally, Torah is the word of God, Tanakh is only so in part. You really need to pay more attention.

I pay very good attention and am very aware of the difference between the Torah and the Tanakh. The Tanakh is the Word of God, of which the Torah is a part.

[exnihilo]

Twaddle. As you well know, the Jews consider only the Pentateuch to be the word of God. If some itinerant rabbi came along later and decided that wasn't so, I really don't care.

And still you ignore me. Read the enxt pragraph where I say I'll confine myself to the Tanakh. If there's contradictions there, and there are (which you're still ignoring) one need hardly demonstrate them to exist between that book and another later book.

You may think you're paying attention, but clearly you're not.

[Paul]

Quoting exnihilo from 14:14, 1st May 2005
Twaddle. As you well know, the Jews consider only the Pentateuch to be the word of God. If some itinerant rabbi came along later and decided that wasn't so, I really don't care.

You may consider it twaddle, but the truth is as I have stated - The Tanakh as a whole is the Word of God.

I assume, by the way, that you now accept that the Pentateuch was written at the time the events occurred, and not some generations later, given the existence of written tablets from a time some 1,000 years before Moses!

You would also agree with Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

Then there is William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist): "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history"

I further assume that you will withdraw your generalisation that "The 'new testament' specifically and flagrantly contradicts the Tanakh" as you are unable (or unwilling) to provide any evidence to support this statement.

Once we have got that out of the way, I am prepared to look the apparent contradictions you provide.

[exnihilo]

Quoting Paul from 00:32, 3rd May 2005
You may consider it twaddle, but the truth is as I have stated - The Tanakh as a whole is the Word of God.

Because you say so? Well, naturally, all those millions of Jews over thousands of years, who wrote and revered the book couldn't possibly know anything about it. How can I, and why should I, argue with that kind of reasoning?

I assume, by the way, that you now accept that the Pentateuch was written at the time the events occurred, and not some generations later, given the existence of written tablets from a time some 1,000 years before Moses!

Not at all. Again YOU make the assertion that I claimed there was no writing at the time, something I have most assuredly not said. I said the Pentateuch wasn't written down as dictation from God. You clearly, I now say for the third time in as many posts, are simply not reading what I say.

You would also agree with Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

I would indeed, but I would almost certainly place a very different interpretation on his remarks than you. But what would I know? I'm only a historian and archaeologist myself!

Then there is William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist): "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history"

Also perfectly sound, you will note he has not actually said that ALL of the Bible is historical fact. I have already acknowledged in several places that it contains historical information. But you will acknowledge yourself that the Bible is riddled with confusion over numbers, genealogies and so forth, making it at best a shaky source (see below).

And excessive skepticism is always a bad thing. That's what excessive means! That quantity which is too much.

I further assume that you will withdraw your generalisation that "The 'new testament' specifically and flagrantly contradicts the Tanakh" as you are unable (or unwilling) to provide any evidence to support this statement.

Once we have got that out of the way, I am prepared to look the apparent contradictions you provide.

I should do no such thing, your reluctance to even contemplate addressing the three (and you did only ask for three) contradictions that I gave make me less and less interested in providing more. Were my first three contradictions so very much not to your liking?

1) Exodus 15:3 and the Psalms 24:8 consider God to be warlike, whereas Matthew 5:9, John 14:27 and several letters of Paul consider him otherwise.

2) Numbers 25:9 and Corinthians I 10:8, can't seem to agree on how many died from God's plague, whether 24,000 or 23,000.

3) The Proverbs 4:7 seem to esteem wisdom highly, Paul in Corinthians I 1:19 says it is as nothing.

There are a great many more, but that's six now; and don't even get me started on the internal contradictions within John or within Paul's letters never mind how often they contradict the other writers of the New Testament. A lot of this seems to be down to their ignorance of the Tanakh, Paul especially so.

[Senethro]

I wish I still had my Break Thread Attack.

*sigh*

Ah well. Next time I have teh hax I'll be much more quiet about it.

[RJ Covino]

Quoting exnihilo from 02:59, 3rd May 2005
But what would I know? I'm only a historian and archaeologist myself!

I can see the billboards now: Indiana Joss and the Temple of Jews.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[raheli]

Until recently, my religion has done no harm to anyone. Can you say the same? I will spell it out for you: JUST LEAVE US ALONE.

[raheli]

And also I thank God every day that we live in a time when debates like this do not decide public policy; when a scuffle in the street doesn't turn to pogroms; and when I have the protection of the power of the state against the power of fanatics.

[Paul]

Quoting exnihilo from 02:59, 3rd May 2005

1) Exodus 15:3 and the Psalms 24:8 consider God to be warlike, whereas Matthew 5:9, John 14:27 and several letters of Paul consider him otherwise.

There is no contradiction at all. It depends entirely on the object of God's attention:

Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. - Romans 11:22

Exodus 15:3 is an expression of God's attitude towards Egypt when they Pharoah refused to listen to Moses:

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone. - Exodus 15:3-5

Psalm 24:8 is a further expression of this aspect of God's character - in this case specifically referring to the entry of the Lord Jesus Christ into heaven after his ascension:

Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.

Note that the Tanakh also refers to a God who loves his chosen people:

How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.
They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures.
For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.
O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart. - Psalm 36:7-10

Matthew 5:9 is speaking of those who bring the Gospel of 'Peace with God' - Salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, by the Grace of God. Jesus Christ is here speaking of those whom God loves - his elect.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. - Matthew 5:9

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! - Romans 10:15

In John 14:27, Jesus Christ is speaking to his disciples - his followers - when he says:

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

However, when he is speaking to the reprobate world, he displays his wrath:

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. - Revelation 19:5

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. - Hebrews 10:31

But to the elect the message is:

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ - I Thessalonians 5:9

Has that clarified that one for you?

It is exactly the same God that is portrayed in both Testaments - and in each Testament he is portrayed in both ways - as a loving Father to his children, but fearsome warrior to those who are not.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: - Colossians 3:5-6

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. - Ephesians 5:3-6

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36

[Paul]

Quoting raheli from 13:27, 3rd May 2005
Until recently, my religion has done no harm to anyone. Can you say the same? I will spell it out for you: JUST LEAVE US ALONE.

Not knowing your religion, I can not assess what you say about it.

However, a true Christian is person of peace, one who is called ot "turn the other cheek", to "give place to wrath".

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. - Matthew 5:39

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. - Romans 12:9

I agree, that there are many who call themselves Christians who are not - and they are the ones who have brought about much harm in the name of Christ. Onne only has to think of the Crusades - called into being by that antichrist, the Roman Caholic Pope.

[Paul]

Quoting exnihilo from 02:59, 3rd May 2005
3) The Proverbs 4:7 seem to esteem wisdom highly, Paul in Corinthians I 1:19 says it is as nothing.

There are two types of wisdom!

Proverbs 4:7 is referring to that type of wisdom which the Bible deems to be good - wisdom which comes from God - wisdom which is extolled in Proverbs 8, where it is a personification of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. - Proverbs 4:5-7

For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. - Proverbs 2:6

Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. - Proverbs 8:1-17

However, there is another type of wisdom portrayed in the Bible. It is the wisdom which is only wisdom in man's eyes, rather than God's eyes - and in reality, it is foolishness.

This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. - James 3:15

It is mentioned in Isaiah 29:14:

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

It is this passage in Isaiah which is quoted in I Corinthians 1:19:

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? - I Corinthians 1:19-20

The New Testament also speaks of the wisdom which comes from God:

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

- James 3:17

So you see, Barry, you are mixing two different things. There is a call in the Bible to "rightly divide the word of truth". This is something which you are plainly not doing.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - II Timothy 2:15

And so you err:

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. - Matthew 22:29

[hr]

For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.
Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.
When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul; Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: - Proverbs 2:6-11

[Mr Comedy]

Absolute nonsense Paul. You are taking passages completely out of context again. The Bible espouses wisdom.

[exnihilo]

You still haven't addressed the original ones, or most of the points I make about the historical validity. nor have you dealt with Paul's ignorance of the Tanakh. Please do.

Oh, and if you are going to use my name - do try to use the right one. I'm not sure I care for the over familiarity, though.