1Tm:1:9: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Tm:1:10: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Tm:1:11: According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Since Moses and Jesus (to name just two) were under the Law, and upheld the Law, I guess Paul would have classify them among the "ungodly" type of "sinners" he rattled off. Indeed, Moses qualified as a "manslayer", and Jesus as a liar, but it’s revealing that Paul thought himself so righteous as to be above the law. After all, Paul was guilty of the blood of Stephen and others whom he persecuted.

1Tm:1:20: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Evidently Paul was running a delivery service for Satan: delivering Christians who chose not to gullibly believe every word that issued out of Paul’s mouth.

1Tm:2:3: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Tm:2:4: Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

If it is "God’s will" that all men should be saved, why did Paul act contrary to God’s will by delivering men to Satan? If God wills something, shouldn’t that something come to pass? Or is there some force (chance, fate, free-will…) greater than God? If God’s will is that all men shall be saved, why did Paul just describe the destruction of the ungodly in a "flaming fire"?

Finally, which "truth" is it that Paul imagines God wants men to know? Is it the "truth" that ‘all men will be saved’, or is it the truth that God will destroy those who don’t follow Paul? Which ideas amongst the contradictory mass of nonsense Paul (and the rest of the Bible writers) spews forth is to be considered "truth"? When Jesus was asked what truth was he is reported to have remained silent.

1Tm:2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Once again Paul contradicted the idea of a Trinity. His words clearly indicate that God and Jesus are two separate entities. But these words also contradict the places in the Bible in which Jesus is called God (Mt. 1:23; Jn 1:1, 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Titus 2:13)

1Tm:2:7: Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

As we have seen, Paul’s "ordination" was based on his own contradictory story of a vision he had. It appears that he also gave himself the title "apostle". Since his story about the vision contains contradictions it is clear that he did in fact lie, in spite of what he claims here ("I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not"). Elsewhere, Paul frankly admitted that he did in fact lie:

Rom:3:7: For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

So now we see that he even lied about not lying! How trustworthy do you think Paul’s words are? Remember: he also claimed that his words were the "word of God" (1 Thes. 2:13)

Could there possibly be significance in the fact that after writing “I speak the truth… and lie not” (1 Tim. 2:7) Paul inadvertently included an emoticon for a smile and a wink – as if he couldn’t say those words with a straight face?

;)

1Tm:2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

More of Paul’s fashion tips masquerading as the "word of God". Why should women wear a shame-faced look? How does that make the world a better place? How does that contribute to their self-esteem and mental health? What is it that Paul thought women should be ashamed of? The fact that they are women?

1Tm:2:11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Tm:2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Tm:2:13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Tm:2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Tm:2:15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This passage alone should be enough to convince us that the Bible should not serve as a guide in living our lives. The highest recorded IQ in history is that of a woman. If Paul had his way, all women, regardless of their intelligence, would remain in silence, making no intellectual contribution to the world. I’m glad that people like Marie Curie, Margaret Sanger, Helen Keller, Margaret Mead, Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, and Joan Barnes (my computer programming teacher) chose to ignore "the word of God" on this matter.

Since many studies have shown that women are superior in many ways to men (see for instance Ashley Montague’s The Natural Superiority of Women), Paul had better have a very good reason for silencing them. Why should we refuse to listen to half the people who have every lived? Paul said it is because Adam was formed before Eve, and Eve was deceived and transgressed. Let’s forget for a moment that the Adam and Eve myth was simply concocted by some man, and take a serious look at these reasons one at a time:

1. Adam was formed before Eve. If this has any relevance at all, it must mean that those who are formed first are to be listened to by those formed afterwards. On this basis, Eve should’ve listened to the "serpent" since it was formed before her. But, since Paul claims that it was by listening to the serpent that Eve transgressed, the rule does not pass scrutiny. Besides that, one of the two accounts we have in Genesis does not put Eve’s formation after Adam’s, but makes it concurrent with his:

Gen:1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

2. Eve was deceived, but Adam was not deceived. If this were true, it would certainly make Adam’s act the more serious of the two. Eve would have an excuse (having been deceived), but Adam would have knowingly and willfully defied the law of God. Adam’s eyes were wide open, and he had no excuse for what he did. So, if anything, it is men who should go around in "shamefaced" silence.

3. Eve, "being deceived, was in the transgression". From these words, Paul implied that only Eve (the only one having been deceived) was in transgression. Therefore woman alone was responsible for getting humankind kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and that’s why she should now keep silent (lest she talk us poor menfolk into something equally as stupid).

But Paul contradicted himself on this point. In his letter to the Romans he clearly stated that Adam was in transgression:

Rom:5:14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So, none of the reasons Paul gave for keeping women in silent subjection have any relevance whatsoever. He was dishonest to claim that his "commandment" had any basis other than his own evident hatred of women.

The only hope Paul held for women’s salvation was "in childbearing"! Is it any wonder that so many Christian men believe that women should be kept "barefoot and pregnant"?

1Tm:3:16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

In 2:5 of this same letter Paul made a clear distinction between God and Jesus. Here he contradicted himself again by saying "God was manifest in the flesh", in effect calling Jesus God.

1Tm:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Tm:4:2: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Tm:4:3: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Tm:4:4: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Paul had just finished stating that those who would be appointed to the office of deacon in the church must not be "double tongued" (1 Tim 3:8). But Paul spoke out of both sides of his own mouth in relation to eating meat. He had given lip service to the Jerusalem council in agreeing to spread the word about abstaining from meat that had been sacrificed to idols:

Acts:15:25: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Acts:15:26: Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts:15:27: We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Acts:15:28: For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Acts:15:29: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Paul accepted this commission, and yet here in his "word of God" he wrote to Timothy that those who teach people to abstain from meat are hypocritical liars spreading the "doctrines of devils"! Paul should’ve paid a little more attention to what he himself was saying before accusing others of hypocrisy!

1Tm:4:10: For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

If God is the savior of "all men, especially those that believe", then it follows that God "saves" men who do not believe. Yet, elsewhere, Paul claimed that only belief can grant one salvation (2 Thess. 2:13, Heb 3:12, 19) And, of course, the most-quoted Scripture in the Bible equates belief with salvation:

Jn:3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jn:3:17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Jn:3:18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The writer of John clearly stated that anyone who did not believe was "condemned", yet Paul implied that God saves non-believers. If we wanted to be "believers", which of these contradictory statements would we have to believe in?

1Tm:5:9: Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
1Tm:5:10: Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
1Tm:5:11: But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
1Tm:5:12: Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
1Tm:5:13: And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
1Tm:5:14: I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

Paul revealed here just how far his famous "charity" extended. Only widows 60 or over who had been married only once, raised children, and washed his "saint’s" feet! Anyone not meeting all of these criteria could be turned away. In those days, I wonder how many women lived to be 60 years old.

Paul also contradicted himself here by recommending marriage for young women. Remember what he said in his first letter to the Corinthians:

1Cor:7:8: I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

But in his letter to Timothy, not only was it Paul’s "will" that young women marry, but that they bear children and "guide the house", in short, Paul wanted women to be "housewives". If I were a young widow seeking advice about remarriage, what guidance could I glean from these passages? Should I marry or not?

1Tm:5:17: Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

If the elders are to be "counted worthy of double honor", then clearly they have a preferred status. This contradicts what Paul wrote to Timothy a few verses later:

1Tm:5:21: I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

But how could Timothy avoid partiality if he was to extend double honor to the elders?

1Tm:6:1: Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
1Tm:6:2: And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
1Tm:6:3: If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Tm:6:4: He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Tm:6:5: Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

In case there could be any doubt about Paul’s oft-repeated stance on slavery, here he repeated it yet again. This time he also revealed that not only were there Christian slaves (who must be content with their lot), there were also Christian slaveholders! These slaveholders were not to be despised, but served! To make it crystal clear just how strongly Paul advocated slavery, he went on to roundly condemn anyone who taught differently! No wonder it took a war to end slavery in Christian America! The preachers only had to point to Scriptures like these to proclaim that slavery was endorsed by "God’s word", and that the abolitionists were therefore evil!

1Tm:6:10: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

This is patently false; the love of money can certainly lead to evil, but it is not "the root of all evil". Evil can spring from many sources other than from the love of money. It can spring from lust, for example, or from a desire for power and glory. It can spring from patriotism. It can even spring from religious beliefs (in fact, that is what it has sprung from most often throughout history).

1Tm:6:13: I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

How is it that Jesus "witnessed a good confession" before Pilate? Matthew stated that Jesus did not say one word to him (Mt. 27:13,14) Luke and Mark relate that all Jesus said was: "Thou sayest it" (Mk. 15:2; Lk. 23:3), and in John all he said was that he was born to be a king but his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36,37). In each version Pilate dismissed Jesus as inconsequential, so Jesus did not make any great impression on him, and Paul was once again at variance with what others Bible writers related about Jesus.

2Tm:2:24: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Tm:2:25: In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

This is another prime example of Paul’s motto: Do as I say, not as I do. Compare his words to Timothy here with his actions as recorded at Acts 13:8-11 (where he struck a man blind for disagreeing with him).

2Tm:3:2: For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

2Tm:3:10: But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

After warning Timothy about boastful men, Paul proceeded to boast about his own charity, patience, etc! Paul was evidently blind to his own double standard.

2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

There were no "Scriptures" about faith in Jesus when Paul was writing his letters; they hadn’t been written yet. It’s not likely that Paul was referring to what we now call the "Old Testament" (since those writings say nothing about "Jesus"). That leaves Paul’s own writings to be referred to, by Paul, as "holy scriptures". If anyone else had made such a claim about their own writings, no doubt Paul would have been the first to denounce them as "conceited".

2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This, of course, is utter nonsense; there are many writings referred to as "Scriptures" which contradict each other, and so could not have been inspired by one omnipotent God. Even Paul’s own writings contain contradictions, so there is no clear doctrine or guidance to be found in them. The contradictions cancel each other out, and we are left with nothing: no doctrine, and no instruction in righteousness. Even if we overlook all of that and just concentrate on the characters revealed in the Bible (the so-called "heroes of the Bible"), we see very little "instruction in righteousness".

Just how righteous was Abraham, who was ready to murder his own son, and who, to protect his own cowardly skin, denied his wife, in effect selling her to the Pharaoh in return for cattle and slaves, and thus causing a plague to befall Pharaoh’s house? (Gen 22:10; 12:9-19)

How righteous was Moses, who ordered the slaughter of innocent women and children? (Num. 31:14-18)

How righteous was David, who murdered a man for not paying him ‘protection money’ and arranged the death of another so that he could add the man’s wife to his own collection of wives and concubines? (1 Sam. 25:7-45; 2 Sam 12:9; 2 Sam. 5:13)

How righteous a man was Jesus, who preached pacifism but whipped men whose actions he disagreed with, who disowned his own parents, taught people to hate their parents, and frequently called people names? (Mt. 5:39; Jn 2:15; Mt. 12:46-50; Lk 14:26; Mt. 3:7; 16:23; 23:17,27-33; Mk 7:27)

How righteous a man was Paul, who struck a man blind for daring to disagree with him, who lied to further his cause, advocated slavery, ‘delivered men to Satan’ and was a sexist? (Acts 13:8-11; Rom. 3:7; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:20; 1 Cor. 11:3)

No, these "Scriptures" are definitely not profitable for instruction in righteousness: quite the opposite!

But why should a Christian even be interested in being "furnished unto all good works" when Paul elsewhere claimed that good works don’t count for anything? (Rom. 3:27)

2Tm:4:14: Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

Once again, Paul forgot his claim that "works" don’t count; only faith does. Here, he requested God to reward Alexander according to his works.  Paul wished evil on someone who did him evil. In effect, cursing the man. This contradicts Jesus’ words:

Mt:5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Ti:1:2: In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

How did Paul know what God promised "before the world began"? Who was there to hear God’s promise? Certainly not Paul. There is no record anywhere outside of Paul’s writings that God made any promises before creating the world. Genesis 1:1 tells us that "in the beginning" God created the world. That doesn’t leave any time before that event in which to make any promises.

Ti:1:9: Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

I wonder what "sound doctrine" Paul had in mind. The doctrines he espoused were full of holes and contradictions.

Ti:1:11: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Here Paul took a stand against freedom of speech. Since his own "sound doctrine" could not compete in the marketplace of ideas, he wanted everyone who didn’t agree with him to just shut up.

Ti:2:4: That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Ti:2:5: To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Once again Paul gave his opinion (as the "word of God") that women must be kept at home, obeying their husbands.

Ti:2:9: Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
Ti:2:10: Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

And, once again, Paul advocated slavery.

Phlm:1:10: I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
Phlm:1:11: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
Phlm:1:12: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:

Phlm:1:15: For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
Phlm:1:16: Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?

This letter was written to Philemon in regards to his slave Onesimus. Evidently Onesimus escaped from Philemon and somehow ended up with Paul. Maybe Onesimus had heard of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in which he wrote:

1Cor:7:23: Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

But if Onesimus had become a Christian in hopes of living in freedom in association with Paul, he was in for a rude awakening. Paul, as we’ve seen, was actually a firm believer in slavery, and he dutifully sent Onesimus back to his "owner" Philemon! That is the entire point of this letter found in the "word of God". Precisely what "instruction in righteousness" does this impart?

Heb:1:10: And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb:1:11: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

The fact that heaven and earth shall perish must come as a big disappointment to those Christians who had hoped to live forever on one or the other. In contradiction to this statement we read:

Eccl:1:4: One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

If the earth "abideth for ever" it cannot perish.

Heb:2:2: For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

From this it follows that every action related in the Old Testament that was not punished, was in fact, not a transgression. This means that (for instance) Moses’ slaughter of the women and children of Midian was not an act of disobedience or transgression: it had God’s blessing! (Num. 31:14-18) We cannot claim, then, that such things are in the Bible to serve as bad examples.

Heb:2:4: God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The writer of Hebrews was evidently unaware that "signs and wonders" don’t prove anything according to the Bible:

Mt:24:24: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Heb:4:12: For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The writings palmed off as "the word of God" are anything but sharp and quick. Few people can manage to stay awake while reading the endless genealogies, and inventories of the loot stolen in each long-winded account of the Israelite’s war atrocities. The book of Hebrews is an excellent example of the Bible’s belabored style and convoluted logic. Finally, no words on a page could possibly divide joints and marrow or discern thoughts.

Heb:5:14: But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

The writer’s analogy is flawed: one who discerns good and evil knows that eating meat is immoral (since it deprives another of life in order to provide oneself with the luxury of meat).

Heb:7:1: For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Heb:7:2: To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Heb:7:3: Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Heb:7:4: Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

It is amazing to me that the writer of Hebrews believed in such a man as this Melchisedec. He described him as immortal, always living, without father or mother! So Melchisedec would have been around when God created the world, and he would have already been around when God "begat" his Son. Melchiisedec, then, would be the "first and the last" (a title claimed exclusively for Jesus). Since the writer of Hebrews calls Melchisedec a "man", it follows that Adam was not the first man, and the places in the Bible that call Adam the first man are in error (1 Cor. 15:45).

Heb:9:22: And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

This is false. The Law provided other methods of atoning for one’s sins without spilling blood. Other ways included: prayer (Num. 14:17-20; Hos. 14:1-4), flour (Lev. 5:11-13), jewelry (Num 31:50), and money (Ex 30:15-16). In any case, seeking to assuage one’s guilt for wrongdoing by killing an innocent animal (or man) is the height of arrogance and injustice. Besides that, unless we are to believe in sympathetic magic, it makes no sense. What relationship does killing an animal have with my wrongdoing? It’s hard to imagine a wrong more extreme than taking a life in order to feel better about oneself. Thus the cure is worse than the disease.

Heb:9:26: For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The writer of Hebrews here revealed that he believed Jesus appeared on Earth and made his "sacrifice" at "the end of the world". Now that nearly 2,000 years have passed, we know that time period was definitely not the "end of the world"!

Heb:10:4: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Heb:10:11: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

This statement nullifies most of the Old Testament, makes the Jewish priesthood a sham, and renders the deaths of countless animals pointless.

Heb:10:37: For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

It has been nearly 2,000 years. Is that a "little while"?

Heb:11:11: Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

Sara’s reaction to the message that she would bear a child in her old age was not one of faithful belief. She laughed at how ridiculous such an idea was. (Gen. 18:12-15)

Heb:11:17: By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Isaac was not Abraham’s "only begotten son". Abraham also "begat" Ishmael (Gen 25:12).

Heb:11:32: And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
Heb:11:33: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
Heb:11:34: Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

The writer of Hebrews had strange heroes. Amongst them he lists Jephthae, whose only claim to fame was the fact that he refused to peacefully give back the land the Israelites had stolen, and burned his daughter alive as a sacrifice to God in order to secure success in this avoidable war (Jg 11). What a great example of a "man of faith"! This also shows us that the Bible (taken as a whole) approved of Jephthah’s actions. Evidently any atrocity is righteous as long as it is accompanied by "faith"!

Heb:12:14: Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

If this is true, then Jephthah shall not see the lord; he had an offer of peace made to him, and chose to go to war instead.

Heb:12:20: (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

More killing of innocent animals due to superstition.

Heb:12:29: For our God is a consuming fire.

This is a much more apt description of the God of the Bible than John’s:

1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Are we to believe that God is love, or that he’s a consuming fire? Or can we delude ourselves into thinking they are one and the same?

Jms:1:9: Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
Jms:1:10: But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.

The rich man is to rejoice in the fact that he will pass away?

Jms:4:9: Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.

This does not strike me as a good prescription for a mentally healthy philosophy of life!

1Pt:1:17: And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

In contradiction to this, Paul repeatedly proclaimed that no man would be judged by his works; only by faith (Rom. 3:27).

1Pt:2:5: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

If Jesus paid the sacrificial price once and for all time (Heb. 7:25-27) why did Peter say that Christians are to offer up spiritual sacrifices? Who, or what are they to "sacrifice"?

1Pt:2:8: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Here, the writer of Peter revealed that the Jews were "appointed" to stumble and be disobedient. The consequence of this statement is that they had no say in the matter, and so it cannot fairly be held against them. It seems unlikely that God would setup an elaborate code of laws and rituals and make a covenant, and then "appoint" the people involved to fail at the whole deal.

1Pt:2:13: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pt:2:14: Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1Pt:2:15: For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
1Pt:2:16: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
1Pt:2:17: Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
1Pt:2:18: Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
1Pt:2:19: For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
1Pt:2:20: For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
1Pt:2:21: For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Passages such as these illustrate why those in authority have encouraged the common people to follow the Bible. It has been the greatest tool in history for keeping people in meek submission to unjust regimes. The writer of Peter encouraged Christians to patiently suffer injustice! Slaves of cruel men are not to run away or fight back, but submit! It is ironic that people like Martin Luther King Jr. considered themselves followers of the Bible; their actions were in complete contradiction to the passage above. I am glad they didn’t follow the Bible! One example of people who really did live by the above passage were the Nazi’s; they honored and obeyed their ruler and followed Peter’s admonition to "submit yourself to every ordinance of man". In fact, when tried for war crimes, this was their very defense: "I just followed orders".

1Pt:3:1: Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pt:3:2: While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pt:3:3: Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

1Pt:3:6: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

The writer of Peter was in evident agreement with Paul’s ignorant opinion of women: they were to be "in subjection" to the point of calling their husbands "lord"!

It is amazing to me that anyone would believe that "chaste conversation" would induce one to believe a mass of unrelated contradictory myths.

Here we also have more commands about fashion! Women are not to wear gold or plait their hair, or wear fine clothes.

1Pt:3:7: Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

The writer of Peter here revealed more of his ignorance by characterizing women as "the weaker vessel". Today we know that women are in no way weaker than men. However, Peter warned us that if we fail to regard women in this chauvinistic light, our prayers will be "hindered".

1Pt:4:6: For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

I can imagine some poor Christian reading this passage and then taking his Bible to the cemetery and reading it aloud over the graves.

1Pt:4:7: But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

The end was not at hand nearly 2,000 years ago!

1Pt:4:8: And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Many throughout history have taken this passage as a free license to defraud multitudes as long as they made a weekly token contribution to the church’s "poor box". The idea of charity covering a multitude of sins is a direct contradiction of Heb. 9:22 which states that only blood can atone for sin.

1Pt:4:18: And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

This contradicts 1 Tim. 4:10 which states that God will ‘save all men, especially those that believe.’ Which Scripture are we to believe: Timothy or Peter? Is God going to save all men (with an extra-special reward for believers), or are believers alone "scarcely" saved?

2Pt:2:12: But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Since when are "natural brute beasts" "made to be taken and destroyed"? This reveals a great lack of ethics. The writer of Second Peter presumed his readers would agree that animals were made to be destroyed! What arrogance! Remember: this is the book that is supposed to teach us ethical conduct!

2Pt:2:15: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pt:2:16: But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.

The writer of 2^nd Peter evidently misread the story of Balaam and his talking ass; far from "going astray", the prophet was carrying out the orders of God when he was "rebuked" (Num. 22:18-28).

2Pt:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

This contradicts Ecclesiastes 1:4 which states that the earth shall abide forever.

2Pt:3:14: Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

In contradiction to this thought, Paul taught that no amount of personal effort mattered in the "race" for salvation; it was all a matter of belief (Rom. 9:16)

1Jn:1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jn:1:10: If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Then neither the truth nor the "word" were in the writer of First John, because he later writes:

1Jn:3:6: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1Jn:3:7: Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1Jn:3:8: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1Jn:5:18: We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
1Jn:5:19: And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

First the writer said that anyone making the statement "I have no sin" is a liar. Then he said Christians do not sin. Applying his own rule, this made him a liar. Since his own writing made him out to be a liar, how prudent would it be for us to believe in what he wrote as the "word of God"?

1Jn:2:18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

It was certainly not "the last time" when this was written nearly 2,000 years ago!

1Jn:2:21: I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Since "no lie is of the truth" and we have already proved that the writer of First John lied, then we know his writings are not "the truth".

1Jn:2:22: Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Here the writer of John created a new definition of truth and lying. A liar is not someone whose statements are contrary to reality, but someone who denies the myths about Jesus! By dishonestly distorting words this way the writer of 1 John could squirm out of being accused of being a liar himself.

1Jn:3:15: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

This statement certainly excludes from eternal life murderers such as Moses, David, Samson, and just about all the rest of the "heroes" of the Bible.

1Jn:4:2: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

There are several instances in the Bible which record "unclean spirits" making just such a "confession".

Mk:1:23: And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
Mk:1:24: Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Unless we are to believe that these unclean spirits are "of God", James’ formula for knowing the spirit of God contradicts such stories

1Jn:4:12: No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

The writer of James evidently didn’t believe the many Scriptures which declared that men had, indeed seen God, such as the following:

Gen:32:30: And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Either First John is false, or Genesis is false, or they’re both false, but both simply cannot be true.

1Jn:4:15: Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

The writer of James must have been unfamiliar with the following passage:

Mt:8:28: And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
Mt:8:29: And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Since this portrayed "devils" confessing that Jesus is the "Son of God", then following James’ formula, God must dwell in devils, and devils in God!

1Jn:5:10: He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

I don’t think it’s the non-believer’s fault if God could not make his "word" believable. It is not the non-believer that makes God a liar, it is writings such as James, filled with contradictions, which make the Bible impossible to believe once you know what it actually says in total.

2Jn:1:10: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn:1:11: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

According to this, Christians are not allowed to let non-Christians into their home! That’s not very tolerant.

Jude:1:11: Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

As previously pointed out, Balaam did not run greedily after reward: he followed God’s orders (Num. 22:18-28).

Rv:2:14: But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

It seems Jesus also had a problem reading his Scriptures aright as regards Balaam (Num. 22:18-28).

Rv:2:20: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Rv:2:21: And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rv:2:22: Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rv:2:23: And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

There are several problems with this passage. First of all, we note that the writer of Revelation seemed to agree with Paul on the matter of women teaching. It is the first sin he charged against Jezebel.

Secondly, we note that he accused Jezebel of seducing Christians to sin. Yet elsewhere the Bible indicates that temptation and sin are the fault of the sinner, and not the tempter:

Jms:1:14: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

1Cor:10:13: There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

In light of these verses, Jezebel was less to blame than those Christians who yielded to temptation.

Most importantly, the writer of Revelation represented Jesus as promising to kill Jezebel’s children! I shouldn’t need to point out the injustice of such an action. It also contradicts the following:

Ezek:18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But the Jesus of John’s Revelation is determined that all should know the type of person he is by this outrageous act of injustice!

Finally, the Jesus of the Revelation promised to reward people according to their works. This contradicts Paul's theology which plainly stated over and over again that only faith would be rewarded, not works (Rom. 3:24-27).

Rv:2:26: And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rv:2:27: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
Rv:2:28: And I will give him the morning star.

From this we learn that Christians are to rule over all the nations, but their rulership will be so cruel and heartless that it will break them like an iron rod breaking clay pots! So much for dealing justly with all men!

What would it mean to "own" the morning star? Of what benefit would it be to Christians to have joint ownership of a star?

Rv:3:9: Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

By forcing Jews to worship Christians, Jesus broke God’s commandment concerning exclusive devotion (Ex. 20:3-5; Is. 42:8).

Rv:4:2: And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

The writer began by stating that he was already "in the spirit" (Rev. 1:9-10), how comes it now that he is suddenly "in the spirit" as if he hadn’t been up till this point?

Rv:4:11: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

The logic in this statement does not follow. Just because someone creates something that does not make him worthy of glory. A person could create pornography or a computer virus for their own pleasure, but that would not make them worthy of glory and honor. If God created "all things" that means he created disease, and that certainly doesn’t merit our praise.

Rv:5:5: And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rv:5:6: And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Here the writer confused his own symbolism by having a lion (which is also a "root") represented as its traditional opposite: a lamb. I also wonder how a lamb that appeared to have been "slain" could be standing.

Rv:5:10: And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Once again, the writer stressed the fact that Christians would rule as kings on the earth. He is not holding out "heaven" as an ultimate reward, but rather a life on earth as a king. At the time this was written there must not have been so many Christians; now they would have trouble finding a sufficient number of nations to rule over since the number of Christians far outweighs the number of nations.

Rv:5:13: And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

If "every" creature did this it would mean that they had all made "confession with their mouth" and all would be "saved" (Rom. 10:9). This contradicts the latter scenes in Revelation of mass destruction of unbelievers (as well as such passages as 2 Thess. 1:7-9.)

Rv:6:4: And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

Here Jesus fulfilled his stated mission to "send a sword" on earth (Mt. 10:34). Note that in this instance men do not go to war and kill each other due to any inherent evil on their part; they do these things because Jesus makes them do these things!

Rv:6:8: And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

If a "fourth part" of the world’s people truly deserved death for not being Christians, why would a just and merciful God not simply take their lives away in an instant? Why resort to death by hunger (one of the slowest, most painful deaths imaginable), or death by animal attack? When we "sinful" humans put criminals to death, we do so as humanely as possible. We don’t starve them to death or set ferocious animals loose on them. Shouldn’t we expect at least as much from the "God of love"?

Rv:6:13: And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Rv:6:14: And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
Rv:6:15: And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

The writer of Revelation evidently knew nothing about astronomy. Stars could never fall to earth like figs. Stars are much greater in size than the earth. If one should ever collide with the earth, the earth would be completely destroyed. There would be no "earth" left for a second star to hit. There would be no mountains or islands to "move out of their places", and there would certainly be no men left to "hide themselves".

It is obvious from the above description that the writer believed the fallacy common to the ignorant people of his day in which the "heaven" was viewed as a canopy a little ways above the earth with little lights called "stars" stuck here and there. Such ignorance is excusable for the common man of that time. It is inexcusable (and inexplicable) in an all-knowing God delivering a "Revelation". It could be argued that God was trying to put the revelation into images the common person could grasp, but the true image of astronomy is certainly easier to grasp than all these strange beasts with multiple eyes, and lambs which are lions which are roots, and all the other absurd imagery in Revelation.

Rv:7:1: And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Again, the writer was ignorant of reality. The earth does not have "four corners". Obviously, the writer believed the earth was a flat rectangle with four corners.

Rv:7:2: And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
Rv:7:3: Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

This gives the impression that the whole drama was very poorly organized. The four angels at the four corners of the earth evidently didn’t know their cue; they were about to "hurt the earth and the sea" ahead of "sealing of the servants". The ‘angel from the east’ had to shout at them to hold off! Some of these angels, evidently, aren’t too bright.

Rv:7:4: And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

This is where Jehovah’s Witnesses get the idea that only 144,000 people will go to heaven (all of them being Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course). They refuse to take this number symbolically, even though the next verses specify that this number consists of exactly 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. They are quick to point out that these "tribes of Israel" are symbolic (representing the true "anointed" Christians). Since none of the "anointed" Jehovah’s Witnesses have ever claimed to belong to a specific symbolic tribe of Israel, it’s difficult to see how they can keep a straight face when in effect they claim that the numbers making up the equation (12 x 12000) are all symbolic, but the product (144,000) is literal!

Rv:7:14: And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

More mixed-up symbolism. How could washing a robe in blood render it white?

Rv:9:3: And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
Rv:9:4: And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
Rv:9:5: And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Rv:9:6: And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

More "torture" of the meek "lamb’s" enemies in contradiction to Jesus’ own words about blessing one’s enemies and returning good for evil (Mt. 5:44). When we find that a criminal is incorrigible, we do not torment him for five months, but give him a lethal injection and painlessly take away his life. But the God of the Bible is less humane and merciful than we.

Rv:9:14: Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.

This is very strange. Why were these angels "bound" in a river? Had they sinned and were being punished? Why then were they chosen to carry out God’s order? Why couldn’t they have just flown down from heaven to carry out their merciless action like the other angels?

Rv:10:5: And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
Rv:10:6: And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

This angel broke Jesus’ commandment not to swear in this fashion (Mt 5:34-37).

Rv:14:4: These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

The writer evidently felt that having sexual intercourse caused a man to be "defiled with women". This is quite a contrast to the God of Genesis who commanded "be fruitful and multiply". Also, we notice that he doesn’t say they were not "defiled with men", which would lead us to believe that the 144,000 were exclusively male. The writer must’ve shared Paul’s low opinion of women.

Rv:14:10: The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Rv:14:11: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

If you thought that tormenting someone for five months with locusts was bad (Rev. 9:5), these poor sods are to be tormented forever with fire! Their torment takes place in the presence of the angels and the "Lamb", who evidently must enjoy the sight of suffering. I guess if you don’t have logic on your side, scare tactics are the best way to get someone to join your religion; it has certainly worked for Christianity.

Rv:15:3: And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

There is no sane individual on this planet who would say it was "just" to murder a sinner’s children (Rev. 2:23) or torment someone for five months (Rev. 9:5), or torture someone forever with fire (Rev. 14:10-11). These people were worshipping a depraved monster and their comments about his "truth" and "justice" are simply lies.

Rv:16:1: And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

Rv:16:3: And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Why was God wrathful with the fish and the whales and the dolphins and the turtles and the eels and the crabs and the lobsters, and all the other inhabitants of the sea? What sin had they committed? Had they somehow gone and gotten the mark of the beast on their foreheads so they could buy and sell? How can we call it "justice" to kill innocent beings?

Rv:16:9: And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

I don’t blame these men for not "giving glory" to the one torturing them! I think the proverb, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar" would apply here.

Rv:20:10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

You can’t get any clearer than that: the devil will be tormented day and night forever. A loving God would never do this. I also wonder: since there will be no more earth, how could there be any night? "Night" you’ll recall is a shadowing of half of the earth turned away from the sun. Nor can this be some sort of night which takes place in heaven, for we are told:

Rv:21:25: And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

If there is only "night" in the lake of fire and brimstone, one wonders what purpose such "night" would serve? Will the devil keep a calendar during his torments so he knows what day it is? What would be the point of having this lake alternate between light and darkness when every "day" would be the same forever?

Rv:20:11: And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Rv:20:13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rv:21:1: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

If heaven and earth "fled away" and there was "found no place for them" back in verse 11, how can it be that in verse 13 "the sea gave up the dead which were in it"? The sea would’ve disappeared with the earth (this is verified in 21:1 which explicitly states "there was no more sea.")

Once again we note that people are here judged “according to their works” not by their faith, contradicting Paul’s theology.

Rv:22:2: In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

How could there be "months" in heaven when there is no "night"? If there is no night dividing the days, then there are no days, and without any days you can’t have any "months". Further, the writer previously told us that there was no sun and no moon to mark the changing months or seasons.

Rv:22:11: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rv:22:12: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Here the unjust are encouraged to continue being unjust. The victims of their injustice are not considered. Evidently this was because the writer thought all these things were going to happen "quickly" and there was no time for any of the unjust to mend their ways. Besides, he was probably looking forward to seeing all of these torments visited upon them.

Rv:22:20: He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

“Quickly”? Reading this verse nearly 2,000 years after it was written renders it pathetic. For all of its violence, threats, and promises, the Bible ends with an unfulfilled whimper: Jesus never came.

Prev Contents