The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance

What lengths? He was hungry so he ate a fish. What makes you think he was trying to prove anything?

Job said nothing about "bodily" or "flesh". And his redeemer would not have been Jesus.

Whom praytell would it have been, then?When Adam walked with GOD in the garden, it was Jesus. God in human flesh is always Jesus. Sheesh.

I'm no Hebrew scholar but the word goel, according to Wikipedia, means something like "next of kin". There's no reason, other than Christian propaganda, to associate the word with Jesus.

How could our "next of kin" redeem us from anything? They are no better than we are....Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I think it needs to be pointed out that in ancient Israel there was a custom or law that gave responsibility to near kin to "redeem" people they were related to, and I'm not sure what all circumstances were involved, but it's an important part of the story of Ruth. She was a Moabite woman who came to Israel with her Israelite mother-in-law Naomi, both having lost their husbands and seeking to make their lives in Israel. Ruth gave up her Moabite gods for the God of Israel and went out to glean grain in the fields to feed her and Naomi.She learns that as a relative of the owner of the field, Boaz, she can become his wife through this "kinsman redeemer" custom and presents herself to him for that purpose. He says there is another man who is a closer kinsman who should be given the opportunity to marry her if he wants to, and that kinsman turns it down, so Boaz marries her.They become the parents of Obed who is the father of Jesse who is the father of David, in other words the line from which Jesus is eventually born. I've been taught this story many times as not only a story about the line of ancestors to Christ but about the role of the Kinsman Redeemer as a type of Christ.So the RIGHT Kinsman CAN cut it, Phat. Jesus IS our kinsman as we are adopted into His family and redeemed by Him, the ultimate Kinsman Redeemer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith I find this quote very interesting. First prerequisite is to believe the Bible is God's word and you've missed it, probably terminally. Does this not seem to be the opposite of what should be true?I think if you believe the Bible is God's word BEFORE you read it, then you will believe that everything in it is true, even if the evidence is much against it.If I believed that the Qur'an was the word of God ( I do not) before I read it, then wouldn't I have the same thought that it was all true?It does make me think that the society that people grow up in decides which book is God's word.Do you think you would believe that the Bible is the word of God if you grew up in a Muslim or Sikh society?Thank youMal x

Hi Jar I think i might have seen a contradiction in your message.I apologise if i am incorrect.You say: Not lies Faith (although that's also likely) but errors, falsehoods, contradictions and irrelevancies. (in the Bible)And Faith, unlike "Biblical Christians" many of us actually read what is written and believe that the Bible really says what it says. Is there not a contradiction here?If the Bible contains errors, falsehoods (lies?), contradictions, and irrelevancies, then is that what it really says?If the Bible contains errors, falsehoods, contradictions, and irrelevancies as you say, then why believe anything that is in it?Why put any faith (*_*) in a book that you believe is in such poor condition?Another question I think of is when the Bible says that Jesus was resurrected, what is the Bible really saying? I am very interested to know.Mal x

I was an atheist until my mid forties. I grew up in a nominally Christian society of course, even went to church as a child but didn't really understand or believe any of it and declared myself an atheist at age fifteen. I didn't truly believe until I was converted some thirty years later. Yes you do have to believe the Bible is the word of God, and God Himself gives us that recognition, but if you don't you don't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're looking at it backwards. You've decided that Jesus is "The Redeemer" so you're concluding that Job must have been referring to Jesus. What you should be doing is trying to figure out what the authors meant by the word they chose. You should also consider the possibility that the translators had their own spin to add by translating it as "redeemer".

No contradictions I believe but also no apology necessary and great questions.I doubt I can answer both questions adequately in one message so let's see how fr I can get and then proceed from there.First, understand that there is no such thing as "The Bible", no single universal (in the sense of accepted by all the chapters of Club Christian) list of what should be included in such a thing. There are many different Canons, the shortest being the Samaritan Orthodox Church that believes only those books likely to have been canonized while Jesus lived should be included (the First five books of the Old Testament) and the largest list being the Ethiopian Long Canon that contains over 80 books.Second, no Bible is one book, one story, one tale but rather an anthology of anthologies written by people of different cultures, eras and mythos for people living in different eras, cultures and mythos. Not one word of any Bible was written for or to people living today. Of course that does not mean that the stories cannot be relevant today.Third, I acknowledge that what is written is actually what is written and not what others might believe is written or claim is written.Are you with me so far?

The sky is green and two plus two equals four.The fact that the first part is false does not render the second part false too.Placing a truth next to a falsehood does not make the truth wrong.Just because the Bible gets some things wrong doesn't mean that you have to throw the whole book out. There's still all the valuable lessons in there.The reason you should believe something that the Bible says is because you have assessed it and found it to be true.The worst thing you could do is just believe it all just because it is in the Bible. That's how you get ridiculous nonsense like YEC.

Like any other source of information, we test it against reality. We accept what matches and discount what doesn't.

Thank you for the reply.I am with you 100% so far.Mal x

Hi Cat Sci The sky is green and two plus two equals four.

​

The fact that the first part is false does not render the second part false too. The sky is green sometimes but I get your point.The way I read Jar's reply was that he is saying there's a great deal of problems with the text, so if it is 'full' of problems then why bother with it. The reason you should believe something that the Bible says is because you have assessed it and found it to be true. There is so much in it that can not be proven, e.g. like the existence of God. These things are taken on faith.I do get what you are saying. There may be true incidents some where in the texts.Thank youMal. x