----- Original Message -----
From: sadduqim@sadduqim.org
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:19 PM
Subject: Debate Part II
Mr. Conder,
Thank you for your reply to my letter. Here are my comments and questions for you. It is a pleasure debating you and I look forward to your next reply. You ask:
"Why, Mr. ben Lewi, do you not feel it necessary to hold the Tanakh (the Old Testament) to the same standards you and I demand of the New Testament? Before I will accept teachings from the Tanakh as authoritative, I must first prove it to be the word of Yahweh. Is that not logical? Is that too much to ask?"
I have studied the Tanakh, and I have studied the "NT" and other writings. The difference is that the Tanakh is the infallible sacred word of Yihweh. It is Divine revelation. It is perfect and completely without any error in the original documents. The "NT" and the Qur'an are not. While they would claim to be sacred inspired writings they cannot survive close scrutiny and examination. But the Tanakh can! It is an easy thing to prove the Tanakh is sacred. I shall do that in this debate! That is my promise to you and our readers.
You make some impressive claims! I am anxious to begin!
By the way the Divine Name is Yihweh not Yahweh. Yahweh is a pronunciation created by Christians. Yihweh is the pronunciation used in ancient Yisra'el by the Sadduqim, then by the Karaites and the Chinese Jews of KaFeng. There actually is no other pronunciation for the Name that was ever used by Jews historically! As someone interested in history I thought you might like to know that. My website addresses this under the tracts section in "The Truth About Rabbanism".
Well, you seem to have learned more than all the rabbis and scholars combined. None of these learned men and women profess to know the exact pronunciation of YHWH. What are your sources for this revelation?
"You say that the Tanakh condemns medical treatment, and I found some examples on your web page. You offer that blood transfusions are forbidden because the Tanakh forbids humans to eat blood. You connect this by pointing out that doctors can feed people with tubes, so a blood transfusion would be like eating blood. This is not only far-fetched, it violates the command in Deu 4:2: "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." Deu 12:32: "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Prov 30:6: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." By putting your own interpretation of the command not to eat blood, you've violated these commands, and you've also demonstrated how "holy" writings like the Talmud and the Catholic Catechism have come to be!"
You accuse me of violating the Tanakh and adding to it. Actually my argument is not at all far fetched. The Tanakh also commands that we bury blood and cover it with dirt. And it says the life is in the blood. Obviously we are violating the Tanakh if we have a blood transfusion.
Why are we obviously "violating" the Tanakh, and what does burying blood have to do with this? You've taken quite a leap here, and my original comment stands: As a bible-believer, you are commanded not to add to or take away from the "Word of God." Furthermore, if the "life is in the blood", as you point out, then putting blood into someone's veins to preserve their life would seem to uphold this observation.
Additionally the Tanakh does not directly address every issue. You will never find the phrase "You shall not have a blood transfusion." The teachings and principles of the Torah can be applied to any issue while they do not directly address them all. So what you must do is apply the principles of the Torah, which I did, and that is how we know blood transfusions are a sin.
I see. So you are saying that because Yahweh failed to anticipate all our situations, it is up to you to add to his word? That's how religions are born and then compounded—from the addled reasoning of succeeding generations of men.
I have never claimed that my words are Divine revelation. So I have not added anything to the Torah.
When you teach something not found in the Tanakh, you sir are adding to that book, which is how the laborious texts of the Talmud were created. Let me explain how that process worked: First came a group of Babylonian Jewish scribes in the time of Ezra who composed a "holy" book out of borrowed fables; next came a group of rabbis trying to clarify their discrepancies, and adding new laws in the process. The problems worsened, hence another generation of rabbis rose up to explain and legislate more law; this continued on until Judaism's holiest book, the Talmud, was born. Now comes you, Mr. ben Lewi, adding yet more to the whole mess. To be blunt, I could care less if your personal decision is to reject a blood transfusion. What I do care about is you teaching others to refuse a treatment that could well cost them their lives!
One must be careful not to ignore the spirit of the Torah either. Many have added to the Torah. Christians have, Muslims have, Mormons have, and others have.
You have left yourself out of this list Mr. ben Lewi!
But I have no sacred book I have written. My writings are solely for the purpose of bringing out the truth of the Torah. Simply because most people have been so bogged down with false religion they cannot see it clearly for themselves.
You keep stating that the Torah/Tanakh is a book of truth. When are you going to prove this? I really don't care to read your theological interpretations about blood, unless you first prove to me that we are discussing a divinely-inspired book!
The Torah also says not to commit the abominable customs of [sic] that were practiced before us. (Wayyiqra/Leviticus 18:30) And it appears the goyim (gentiles) are having blood transfusions does it not? This was not done in ancient Yisra'el nor approved of.
Leviticus 18:30 says this: "Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God." Not adding anything to this command, how can you get a prohibition about blood transfusions out this verse? Indeed, as you point out there was no blood transfusions in ancient Israel, so how could any one or any thing disapprove of the procedure?
Comment: "You mention that the symbols of modern medicine are pagan, but one of these symbols is the serpent on the pole, which comes from a story in your own Tanakh (i.e., the story of God bringing deadly serpents on the children of Israel, and healing them of poisonous bites only when they looked upon a brazen serpent fixed to a pole! (Num. 21:9)."
The medical symbol is two intertwined serpents on a pole that's not the same as the serpent fixed to a pole used in ancient Yisra'el. It's a quite a leap to imply they are related at all. There is no connection between these two incidents. One must be careful not to take things out of context.
You have the nerve to remind me not to take things out of context when you see a prohibition against blood transfusions in the Torah? You are right about one thing—two entwined snakes on a pole (the Caduceus) is an emblem used in medical science. But it is most often used in dentistry, a medical profession I'm guessing you also condemn. (See http://www.allheart.com/dentalpins.html for an example.) Apparently you are unaware that a single serpent entwined around a pole is the emblem of the American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/). It is also the emblem of the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/en/), and numerous hospitals and doctors display this emblem, and why it is the emblem of paramedics. If you want to be more specific, the Royal Society of Medicine coat of arms features the serpent of Moses on a Tau cross, and flowers which resemble the stylized Lotus frequently depicted in ancient Egyptian art. Now let me tell you how I can make a connection to the story of Moses and the bronze idol Yahweh commanded him to make, thus violating his own command.
I will guess that you know the history of the Hasmoneans and their Hellenization of the priesthood during the time they ruled over the temple. I will also guess that you know about the heavy influence of Persian Zoroasterism and the Babylonian mysteries on the priesthood during the Babylonian Captivity. You may even be honest enough to recognize that Ezra and his scribes incorporated this borrowed mythology for a good portion of Genesis. But, perhaps you are unaware that one of the most popular gods during these times was Æculapius, the Greek god of healing. The symbol of his healing power was a snake entwined on a pole. Relevant here is that the legends of this god of healing predate the oldest known Torah legend of Moses making a bronze serpent-idol on a pole to heal his people. All of this is a strong indication that Ezra and company didn't neglect to plagiarize one of the classical world's most famous symbols in their new "holy" book.
Indeed, it appears that Æculapius was so thinly disguised in Rabbinical Judaism that he was openly worshiped in Judea. Notice the NT Gospel of John (5:2-4): "Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water; whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole from whatsoever disease he had."
The famous bible historian, Dr. James H. Charlesworth (writing in the Bible Review for Feb., 1993, article "Reinterpreting John"), writes "For example, in John 5:2 the author [supposedly the apostle John] describes a monumental pool with 'five porticoes' inside the Sheep Gate of Jerusalem where the sick came to be healed: the pool, we are told, is called Bethesda. No other ancient writer—no author or editor of the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, not even Josephus—mentions such a significant pool in Jerusalem. Moreover, no known ancient building was a pentagon, which was apparently what John was describing with five porticoes. It seemed that the author of John could not have been a Jew who knew Jerusalem. Archaeologists, however, decided to dig precisely where the author of John claimed a pool was set aside for healing. Their excavations revealed an ancient pool with porticoes (open areas with large columns) and with shrines dedicated to the Greek god of healing, Asclepius. . . . The author of John knew more about Jerusalem than we thought."
Certainly the Old Testament composers knew nothing of this pool, because their work commenced a few centuries before the pool was built. But, later, when the Hasmonean priests were busy Hellenizing Judaism, there would have been no problem dedicating a healing shrine to a god whose symbol was the same as Judaism's great miracle worker, which explains why the Jews of the first century were bathing in a pentagonal shaped pool dedicated to Æculapius and his serpent-on-a-pole emblem—quite literally in the shadow of the Temple itself—actually a little over 100 yards away. (To answer those who might argue that this pool was constructed by the Romans, I will point out that, had the Romans built it in the shadow of the Temple, their actions would have caused an armed uprising. The only conclusion is that the priesthood itself was a part of this pool's construction. By the way, the pentagonal shape of the pool, as noted in the Charlesworth article, is an important shape within the ancient mystery religions. It is another form of the more famous Pentacle, or pentagram, which dates back to the time of ancient Babylon. Significantly we find that, "Its meaning was given as 'life' or 'health.' Some called it the star of Ishtar or of Isis. . . Use of the pentacle as an amulet of protection or healing was common in Babylon . . . " [Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, p. 782.] Who was the god Æculapius, to whom the Jews dedicated the pool of Bethesda? He was but a Greek version of the Egyptian god Osiris, whose sacred waters were supposedly the cure for a variety of woes. [See Francis Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, sec. I, p. 87.] Over the coming centuries, Osiris was transformed into the god Serapis and finally emerges as the Greek god of healing, Æculapius. [See Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 471.] Historian Robin Lane Fox, in his book, Pagans and Christians, outlines Æculapius' attributes by the time of the common era: ". . . he effected cures through bathing in water, hence numerous shrines, which always featured a pool, were known throughout the ancient world. " [pp. 118, 151-152.]. Obviously, the Jews of ancient Jerusalem didn't neglect this important god or his symbol!)
Mr. ben Lewi, with Moses's serpent-on-a-pole idol, we are glimpsing a small part of Judaism's true past, and a big hole in your "pagan idolatry" argument!
(http://www.rsm.ac.uk/librar/archsymbol.htm, article "Symbolism of the Arms".)
Comment: "This story violates Yahweh's own command not to make any graven images!"
No, it does not. Since Yihweh wanted this serpent created and it was not for the purpose of being worshipped it does not violate any command. It was not a graven image. Although individuals latter decided to worship it, it was never created for that purpose, and its worship was never condoned.
Hold on! Are you saying that if Yahweh gives a life-or-death command in one scripture, he is free to order us to break it in another scripture? Now, if, according to your reasoning, Yahweh decided the serpent on a pole image would symbolize healing, then why is it a "sin" for the directors of the AMA, WHO, RSM, etc., to select a serpent on a pole as their symbol of healing? Keep in mind, Mr. ben Lewi, that these medical men and women are not worshiping this emblem, but using it as an inspirational sign of healing, as did (you say) the Israelites in the Mosaic fable.
Comment: "You point out that the symbol for prescription medicine is "RX" and that it's pagan. You're right, but what does that prove?"
It is part of the case against medicine, which shows it has a pagan origin. I would invite our readers to look under the tracts section of the web site www.sadduqim.org and they will find a solid case against medicine including many proofs that it is a sin.
I fail to see your logic here. Medicine doesn't have a pagan origin, modern medical men have applied an ancient pagan symbol to their profession, which includes the pagan symbol of Moses' entwined serpent. I could go into a lengthy history lesson here, but I think it will be wasted on one so determined to teach people to suffer needless pain and death to appease his make-believe god!
Comment: "The Tanakh is full of pagan symbolism and mythology. One example that comes to mind is the architectural knowledge that built Solomon's temple, which again violated Yahweh's command against graven images. (1 Kings 7:21 "And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz. 22 And upon the top of the pillars was lily work: so was the work of the pillars finished. . . . 25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward." I could carry this on to the Ark of the Covenant and the cherubim (Exodus 25:18-20), but you surely get the point."
Those were not idols. An idol is a statue or image that was specifically designed to be worshipped.
I see. So Exodus 20:4 isn't to be taken literally? Why then does "Moses" repeat the injunction in Deu. 4:22-23? However, if what you say it true, then there is no biblical injunction against the Catholics making images of the Virgin and the various saints of their church, since they, like you, claim that they don't worship these images.
Did anyone worship the pillars of the Temple in ancient Yisra'el? Can you prove they did so? Otherwise its absurd to claim the pillars were idols. Its one thing to make statues and to worship them, its quite another to decorate the Temple and its area with statutes and images which are not pagan. That is not forbidden and I see no contradiction here whatsoever. If gold images were commanded for the Temple they could not be pagan because Yihweh commanded them! No one worshipped the Ark of the Covenant either. We should worship Yihweh and Him alone!
No, I can't prove that these pillars were worshiped. But then neither can you prove they were not worshiped. The question here is why were there two giant images of the sun-god's penis standing in front of Yahweh's holy temple? For what purpose was images of the mother-goddess' vagina carved on these giant penises? Oh, I forgot. You say they were not pagan because "Yihweh commanded them." Well, you are unable to prove that "Yihweh" was not himself a pagan mythical god, let alone that he commanded anyone to build or carve anything! If you can do so, then show me the historical proof. Actually, you, nor the legions of archeologists who have been digging around the Middle East for centuries, can even prove there was any such nation as "Israel" as depicted in the Tanakh narrative, outside that book of legends! You can't prove that any of the "ancient" kings of Israel ever existed, specifically Solomon, who supposedly built this infamous temple we are discussing. If you can (and don't give me religious commentaries on the matter), then show me the evidence.
When Yisra'elim prayed before the ark they were praying to Yihweh, and not to the ark itself, they also were bowing to Yihweh and not the ark itself. His presence was between the Cherubim on the ark.
Hey, that's the same excuse the Catholic priests use when they teach their followers to bow before various images. At any rate, let me get this straight: An Israelite believer, seeking Yahweh, would walk into the temple past a bowl with twelve bronze bulls (potent symbols of the Babylonian mysteries), past two phallic pillars (symbols of the sun-god's penis) on which were carved lilies (symbols of the Babylonian mother-goddess' vagina), into the structure (that Yahweh claimed he did not desire in the first place) so that a priest (whose holy office matched those of ancient Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, Canaan, etc.) could go into the "holy of holies" and bow before a pair of gold-winged cherubim, and (we are to believe), ignoring them, prayed to a god who happened to have the same name as an ancient Canaanite fertility god named Yah? I just wanted to make sure I have the picture you're painting here, Mr. ben Lewi.
Comment: "Indeed, you condemn Christianity as paganism, and so it is; but these pagan Christians have given the world most of its advanced technology—for instance the computer you have used to send me your message."
You condemn Christianity as well. Was the computer invented by a Christian, I did not know that? Actually most scientists and inventors are Atheists and skeptics. I never called the computer a pagan device that was absolutely forbidden to use, nor have I written any articles against computers specifically. As for "advanced technology" I will use it to get the message of the Torah out. But I would one day like to live without electricity on my own farm in a rural area. My dream is to live just like they did in ancient Yisra'el. To eat good organic food, breathe clean fresh air, and enjoy good Yihweh-fearing company. We are working to create such a community, and of course you are invited to join us. It is my sincere prayer that you will leave skepticism behind.
To have this point clear Mr. ben Lewi, I do condemn Christianity and Judaism, and Islam, and all religions, including whatever it is you're preaching. Not one of these group can produce a "holy book" that will withstand close scrutiny. Regarding your comment that "most scientists" are atheists: So what if you are right? Can you blame them? Educated men and women with analytical minds hardly can be expected to embrace as truth the childish mythology of your bible! I do not accept your charge that most inventors are atheists and skeptics. Some of the greatest inventors (Alexander G. Bell, Henry Ford, the Wright brothers, etc.) were dyed-in-the-wool Christians. You say you want to live just like they did in ancient Israel? Considering you have ordained yourself as a chief priest, I'm sure you do. In such a community you will do no work, but will receive the choice part of the fatted-calf (on behalf of your god, of course), and decide who is to be stoned to death for violating an arbitrary command of a god you cannot prove ever existed. Quite a set up!
I think if you honestly look at the pro and con of it you will see modern technology has not done the world so much good. Looking at monitors all day strains our eyes. Eating processed food is not healthy. Today according to army records more people are rejected from signing up more then ever due to health problems. It is a fact that we are less healthy today than ever thanks to modern medicine and modern technology. The Tanakh said man might live to 70 or 80 years and today the life span is in the same area. But people are sick all the time today. I however never use medicine and have not gotten sick once since I rejected medicine about four years ago.
The fact is that humans did not normally live to be 70 or 80 just a century ago, despite breathing clean air, eating organic foods and drinking fresh well water. The average life span in 1900 was age 47, compared to approximately 76 years today. The extra few decades of life that is now the norm is due to medical advances. As to your medical condition, I don't care one way or the other about your choices. What I hold against you is commanding others to risk their lives for a pie-in-the-sky promise from a group of dead scribes who invented a god to go along with their bogus promises!
Comment: "By your reasoning, we should abandon these advances because they are tainted by paganism."
Good observation, I partially concede that point. I look forward to abandoning them as soon as it becomes practical and workable. But we will need a small group of people to run our own farms and community. Medicine is forbidden out right. Cars and telephones are things we simply would be better off without. The distinction is important to keep in perspective. There are things that are not good for us that are absolutely forbidden and then there are things that are not good for us that are better if we avoid them.
Ahhh! Shades of Jim Jones and his "People's Temple" here, or the Heaven's Gate cult!
Comment: "People with this reasoning is what has kept humanity in dismal ignorance for most of its history!"
Tell me how are we more moral and more ethical thanks to modern technology?
Well, there you might have a point! I mean, here you are using modern technology to teach your destructive ideas to anyone ignorant, or superstitious enough, to listen—as are a legion of your fellow priests, ministers, rabbis and Islamic mullah.
What has science or technology taught you about ethics and morality and spirituality? Otherwise your argument has not a leg to stand on.
For one thing, it has taught me to use logic instead of relying on "the fear of the Lord" when examining the claims of so-called men of God!
If anything society is more immoral and more sinful than at any other time in human history. And I challenge you to prove otherwise.
If that is so, then it's because there are more people on earth than in any time in human history. However, the god you are preaching supposedly killed off the entire world in Noah's day because the world was sinful. He hasn't done that today, which must mean that this is not the most immoral society in human history! But, who has determined "morality" and "sin?" You? Some mythical Moses? Ezra? A talmudic rabbi? A Catholic priest? A Jerry Falwell? This gets back to the crux of this exchange: Prove to me that the Tanakh or any other "holy" book is the word of "Yihweh" (or Yahweh, or whomever), and then we can give this entire exchange a legitimate and worthwhile consideration.
Comment: "I mean, because your Tanakh teaches that the earth is flat, the Christian Church declared that to be dogma, and persecuted anyone who dared state otherwise."
Show me where it says that in the Tanakh? It says the world is round and floating upon nothing! I am writing a book called "Absolute Proof For Absolute Truth" which proves the Tanakh is true. Here's an excerpt: "Yesha'yahu/Isaiah 40:22 says "It is He who sits upon the circle of the earth and it's inhabitants are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." The Ivri/Hebrew word for circle can also be translated sphere. In the ancient world most people did not know the earth was spherical. But if they had read the Tanakh they could have known!
First I will say that most of the ancients could not have read the Tanakh, because when they lived, Ezra and his scribes had not yet composed it from their plagiarized mythology.
Before answering your "circle" explanation, let me first point out where the bible teaches a flat earth: Isaiah 11:12: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH." Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" Jeremiah 16:19: "O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit." Daniel 4:11: "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH." Job 11:9: "Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea." Job 37:3: "He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth." Job 28:24: ". . . for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens." These teachings were taken serious enough that whoever composed the book of Revelation (7:1), used the Tanakh's "infallible" teaching: "And after these things I saw four angels standing on 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."
The earth has no "ends"! If one walked in a straight line without stopping, they will eventually arrive back from whence they started. And the earth doesn't have four corners. So, if this is Yahweh talking, or inspiring his "holy" prophets, etc., then we are not dealing with the same being who created the universe or he would have known better than to talk of the earth having four corners, or ends!
In the NIV translation of Psalm 104:5, we can read this: "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Job 38:4: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand." A building has a foundation, but not the earth, and the earth DOES move! In Ecclesiastes 1:5: "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." Do you, Mr. ben Lewi, believe that the sun rises and sets? This statement (and the absurdity about Joshua commanding the sun to stand still) is why the Christian Church imprisoned and murdered scientists, such as Giordano Bruno, and tortured the renowned Galileo into retracting his position that the earth revolved around the sun. In other words, the one who created the universe wouldn't be talking about the sun moving around, and the earth standing still!
Job 9:6: "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble." I've seen satellite photos of the earth, and have yet to see any "pillars" holding it into place.
Now, to the "circle" of the earth verse in Isaiah 40:22, which you claim proves that the Tanakh's composers knew the earth was round.
First of all, it is clear that the Tanakh's authors believed in a flat earth, that the earth has foundations and has edges (Job 38:13). So, we are left with one verse that stands as a contradiction, if your explanation is correct. Let's look at the verse in Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
Notice what this verse says and doesn't say. It speaks of a circle, and a circle is not a ball or sphere. It is a flat round surface, just as is a rectangle or square or a triangle. I suppose one could argue that this means the earth is flat, but in the shape of a circle, which would contradict the "four corners of the earth" teaching because a circle doesn't have four corners. (Again, this fact is why religionists of the past believed and taught that the earth was flat, and killed anyone who opposed this dogma!)
Seeing how much you rely on Jewish scholarship in your work Mr. ben Lewi, let me quote the JPS Tanakh's translation of Isaiah 40:22: "It is He who is enthroned above the vault of the earth, So that its inhabitants seem as grasshoppers; Who spread out the skies like gauze, Stretched them out like a tent to dwell in." Now here we have a translation from rabbis and Jewish scholars who have spent most of their lives living and breathing biblical Hebrew, and they turn your "circle" into a "vault!" In case you're interested, the Hebrew here is Strong's #2329 "chuwg," and The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon defines the word thus: "vault;—only of vault of the heavens . . . Is 40.22."
Nevertheless, if you maintain that this verse teaches a round earth, then it flatly (no pun intended) contradicts the other scriptures that teach a flat earth, an earth that has edges and that is built on a foundation in the shape of pillars!
The Tanakh tells us that Yihweh "stretches out the Shawmahyim/Heavens like a curtain" The Ivri/Hebrew verb for stretches is in the present tense. So He is still stretching out the universe. This conforms to what scientists are now observing using their telescopes, the universe has been expanding!
Now hold on! Are these the same scientists that you have been trashing as pagans—whose work you've declared null and void? What you are proving is that such men and women are only useful if they happen to say something to back your Tanakh! Regarding your "present tense" declaration here, I will refer you to the JPS Tanakh, whose translators render this verse in the past tense. So it comes down to which group of Hebrew scholars you want to believe. For me, the question comes full circle (no pun intended on previous exchange) to the fundamental question: Is the Tanakh the word of your Yahweh, or the men who invented both? If it's from the Creator, then we are not going to find a book of contradictions about a "circle" above the earth, and a half dozen more claiming the earth is flat.
Iyyov/Job 26:7 says "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing. He binds waters in his thick clouds . . . " The Tanakh says the earth is hanging upon nothing, just as science says.
Again relying on science! That's the first step in finding your way out of religious madness, Mr. ben Lewi! Technically, the earth is not "hanging upon nothing". The sun's gravitational pull holds the earth and other planets in their orbits, just as the planets' gravitational pull keeps their moons in orbit around them. Now, what would have been most impressive here is if your Yahweh had explained this, instead of displaying dismal ignorance about basic science!
While I'm discussing the sun, let me point out some things you may not know.
Notice Psalm 19:6, which is speaking of the sun: "His [the sun] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." Before commenting on the lack of this verse, let me point out that the preceding two verses reveal something more disturbing than this. "In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race." Why would Yahweh have built a tabernacle (or temple) for the sun? Such a concept was well established in most Middle Eastern mystery religions (especially in Egypt), but supposedly the worship of the sun was anathema to the Israelites. Not only this, but the psalmist refers to the sun as "he" and "his", which was the gender of the Middle Eastern sun deities. Even more, the sun's designation as a "bridegroom" is in line with the role played by the sun-gods of Middle Eastern paganism!
Religionists claim that Psalm 19:6 is revealing the scientific fact that the sun has its circuit with a circumference of about 338,000 light-years. The problem with this is that the heaven has no ends from which the sun emerges or to which it is approaching. Further, the rest of the verse, which says "and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof", is unscientific, since the sun's heat can not reach every object in an infinite universe. As already noted, Yahweh declares that the sun arises and goes down, and "hasteth to his place where he arose." (Eccl. 1:5) Again we notice the assignment of gender to the sun. And, Mr. ben Lewi, surely you would agree that the sun does not move. It does not go down, nor does it rise, or hasten any where. Is this the voice of the omnipotent creator of the universe here, or just the words of a scientifically ignorant man?
Iyyov/Job 28:25 says "When He makes a weight for the winds, and He weighs the water by measure." Science has discovered that air and all gases have some degree of weight. The Tanakh proclaimed this before modern scientists did. Iyyov/Job 38:25 says "Who has divided a watercourse for the torrent of rain, or a way for the lightening of thunder to cause it to rain . . . " The Tanakh tells us that electrical discharges cause rain, just as science does."
I figured you'd use this verse to "prove" the Tanakh was divine. (It once was a favorite of mine.) First of all, the meaning of the verse is vague at best, which serves the purpose of religionists like you for declaring that Yahweh was revealing a scientific fact that would not be known for millennia. Let me tell you what would have been impressive. If your Yahweh would have revealed to his "holy" prophets that this planet was round (ancient Hebrew-speakers had sufficient vocabulary to relay this concept), that it was in orbit around the sun, along with the other eight planets in our solar system, and that the sun doesn't rise and set. That would be something to crow about! Instead you religionists scour the Tanakh looking for the odd suggestion of a scientific law! At any rate, the main reason this verse is pure nonsense is that the preceding verse declares the world to be flat: Job 28:24: "For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven." There's no reason for anyone to believe that a god who claims he can see the ends of a flat earth, is actually talking about weighing the wind!
If your looking for someone who will defend the "Christian Church" your talking to the wrong person. Need I remind you Christians have murdered millions of Jews during the crusades, pogroms, and throughout history? I do not defend my enemies. And our mutually abhorrence of Christianity is probably one of the few things we can agree on.
Certainly I will agree with you about the murderous history of Christianity. But I'll let you in on a secret: The Christians don't have a monopoly on murder, torture and abuse. For instance, the Jews, who complain about their abuse at the hands of other religions, have more than their share of blood dripping from their hands. Ignoring the horrific murders of men, women, children and suckling babes, as outlined in the Tanakh, the Jews were directly responsible for more Christian murders during the Bolshevik Revolution and afterward, than the number of Jews killed by Christians in all centuries combined. Now that is a fact of history, and I am fully prepared to document it for you, if you are ignorant of the history. (Just to give you a glimpse, I will quote the London-based Jewish Chronicle for 4 April 1919: "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." When Lenin, who is now revealed as being a Yiddish-speaking part Jew, returned to Russia to establish his government in 1917, of the 165 men he brought with him, 128 were Jewish. When he established his government in 1918-1919, 457 out of the 556 "important functionaries of the Bolshevik State" were Jews. These mostly Jewish men authored a campaign to destroy Christianity in Russia, which included demolishing cathedrals, monasteries and churches, and murdering priests, nuns and a host of other Christian men and women. In the years to come, some 30 million Christian men, women and children died at the hands of Bolshevism, which was itself the invention of the Jewish Karl Mordecai, or Karl Marx, and his Jewish compatriot, Moses Hess, who has been designated as the communist rabbi Moses. I will add to this example another mentioned by the famous English historian, Edward Gibbon, in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties that they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives. . . . In Cyrene they massacred 220,000 Greeks; in Cyprus, 240,000; in Egypt, a very great multitude." [1783 edition, Vol. 2, chapter 16, page 384.])
Now, let me say this (before someone yells "anti-Semite" here): If one Christian murdered one Jew, it was one too many; if one Jew murdered one Christian, it was one too many; if one Jew murdered an Islamic, it was one too many; if one Islamic murdered a Jew, it was one too many; if one Hindu murdered one Sikh, it was one too many; if one Sikh murdered one Hindu, it was one too many; if one Protestant murdered one Catholic, it was one too many; if one Catholic murdered one Protestant, it was one too many! What I'm saying is that, any time a "man of God" gets the power to lord his religion over others, then be assured that with his "holy" bible in one hand, and the sword of death in another, blood will flow. That's why I'm dedicated to stopping all religion and the fanatics that will, if not stopped, certainly bring about the final destruction of this planet.
Comment: "They tortured scientists, free-thinkers and anyone who dared think outside your Tanakh or their New Testament. What a gift so-called "men of God" have bestowed upon the world!"
If you think the world would be better off without organized religion lets look at how it does! Today in America and Western Europe religion is considered less important than ever and has less power than ever. Today our society has sunken to lows never imagined possible before. Who would have ever guessed it would be socially acceptable for women to have their own unborn babies murdered, and it would be allowed by our government? And did you know most forms of birth control induce abortion? A 1969 FDA Advisory Committee examining the Pill documented that it can cause abortion. The Committee, headed by NIH's Dr. Philip Corfman, said that: "The second major effect is on the endometrium. The progestin acts as an antiestrogen causing alteration in endometrial glands and as a progestin, causing pseudodecidual reactions. Both of these alter the ability of the endometrium to participate in the process of implantation." (Advisory Committee on Obstetrics and Gynecology, Food and Drug Administration, 1969, Second Report on the Oral Contraceptives, app. 4, "Report of the Task Force on Biologic Effects," Philip Corfman, Chairman.) Attorney Frank Sussman, when arguing on behalf of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America during the Supreme Court hearings on the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services case in 1989, told the justices, "There no longer exists any bright line between the fundamental right that was established in Griswold and the fundamental right of abortion that was established in Roe. These two rights . . . overlap . . . The most common forms . . . of contraception today—IUD's, low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available—act as abortifacients."
And yet most of the American people could not care less. They are too busy watching Oprah and Jerry Springer! They love to watch the dysfunctional families fight on TV! They delight to hear about the incestuous relationships paraded on sleazy TV shows. They love reality based TV shows in which contestants must eat bugs and do disgusting things humiliating and debasing themselves. Today most Americans have virtually no sense of morality at all. And if you don't believe me drive by a local school and see the way parents allow their children to dress. Ask a young person. Is there an absolute truth, does life have a purpose? And they will likely say no. A recall hearing of a college teacher who was shocked to find that most of his class refused to label the holocaust or the Nazis as evil. They said "who is to say what is evil and what is not" this is the logical outcome of skepticism. If you do not accept the Torah how do you know murder is morally wrong? Its only your opinion in such a view, and not an absolute God given truth is it?
Well, well, well! Once again you're using medical science in an effort to refute medical science! If medical science is of the devil, as you claim, then you've no right to use it to uphold your religious dogma! For the record, I too am opposed to abortion, in most cases. I am opposed to the trash television you mention, etc. But, if our present society is a mess it is because of religion, not in spite of it. If your god was truly an all-powerful, all-wise, loving, merciful deity, he would have given the world a perfect instruction book so that there would be a dearth of men like you breathing hell and damnation against everyone and everything that crosses their path. Is it any wonder that the young of this generation have no desire to look to your god and his self-ordained priests, rabbis, ministers, apostles, and hocus-pocus prophets? And while we're on the subject, if you want examples of mass murder, fratricide, sexual debauchery, perversion, theft, incest and pornography, then open the pages of your Tanakh. If the young people today really wanted to sink to new lows, then they could start by following the examples of your holy word!
Comment: "All I can say is that your recommendations about healing should be well received by the mortuary industry! I will be happy to be more specific, if you care to discuss this issue."
I seriously doubt that masses of people will be dying because of what the Torah says about medicine. If they are righteous and it is the will of Yihweh they will be healed. If it is not His will then it is not right for them to be healed. I can say from personal experience that I have not been sick in at least four years and I have not taken any medicine during that entire time. My health is excellent now, although it was not before when I did use medicine. That's when I was sick all the time. As I recall Herbert W. Armstrong lived to be in his 90s, and of course he did not accept the true religion, yet his rejection of medicine, and adherence to some of the food laws undoubtedly helped him to live to such a ripe old age. Any thoughts on that? Please be more specific on how you think my religion is going to cause the needless deaths of many people due to our rejection of medicine?
Well, Mr. ben Lewi, I knew Herbert W. Armstrong—not well, but I knew him. Let me assure you that the old hypocrite, who had preached the evils of doctors and medicine for fifty years, and who caused countless thousands to suffer and die, had the best medical treatment that the millions of dollars milked out of his followers, could buy. During his final illness, he was surrounded by a staff of doctors, specialists and round-the-clock nurses. I know, I was there. And yes, he ate healthy foods, prepared by highly-paid nutritionists. He could afford it, with his unlimited access to the $200,000,000 a year that his faithful sent to his church.
I don't think I need to waste any more space here explaining my position on medicine and religion. To answer your last question, just refer to my previous statements.
Comment: "I believe in a creator and I seek his laws in nature and from other sources, such as meditation. Of course I know you are promoting a written word, which would be great, if I can prove that such a word was direct from my creator."
How do you see the laws of a Creator in nature and from meditation? If you mean meditation as clearing your mind of thought, how can that help you understand anything? Tell me the great ethical truths you see when you look at flowers and shrubs? Don't misunderstand me, all of nature's beauty bears witness to a Creator, but does it give you moral instruction? What keeps you motivated to continue living? Do you believe that the Creator has an absolute truth? Do you believe He has absolute standards of conduct for human beings? What would it take for you to believe in the Tanakh again as a sacred document?
In Genesis 24:63 you read: "And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide." There are a number of other examples of meditation in your Tanakh, so I can't see how you could oppose it! Meditation does not mean to make your mind blank, Mr. ben Lewi, it is a means to focus on a specific thought, i.e., contemplation. When I am meditating, I am contemplating the laws of nature, which reveal a great deal about the one who designed it all. This is a simple, uncomplicated process for which you do not need a book of mythology, make-believe gods, and a host of "thou shalt nots." You then find yourself free to face a whole spectrum of questions—most importantly the necessity of priests, rabbis and ministers. What keeps me motivated to keep on living, you ask? The love and concern I feel for nature, for those I have come to know and love, the good I feel I can do during my time on earth, and pulling the rug out from under people like you, whose concept of "morality," if left unchecked, will drag the world back to the Dark Ages, or cause its destruction. What would it take for me to again accept the Tanakh as the word of my creator, you ask? How about a divine revelation or visitation (a burning bush, perhaps) from your god?
Comment: "But the Tanakh I have here didn't drop from heaven, the title page says it was published in Philadelphia by the Jewish Publication Society. The preface tells me that they got it from a group of men called Masoretes, and history tells me that they got it from the Pharisees, and from there the trail goes cold."
The Tanakh was revealed to ancient Yisra'el. Different groups have come and gone. But there is no reason not to trust the Tanakh.
This tells me a lot about your thinking. You are saying that you have complete trust in the honesty of men, scattered in different places in the world, over the course of 2,500 years, who have a notorious history of murder, perversion, theft, deceit and avarice. This is the rock of your faith? And how can you prove that the Tanakh was revealed to ancient "Yisra'el"? You can't even prove that the ancient "Yisra'el" outlined in your Tanakh, ever existed. I challenge you to do so!
Comment: "All I see here is the hand of man, so what else can I do Mr. ben Lewi, but closely examine the Tanakh to see if they are telling the truth and it really is the word of an omnipotent creator?"
If anyone is sincerely searching the Tanakh to see if it is true, they will eventually conclude it is true. The evidence is over-whelming. I know because I have seen it.
Well, I'm still waiting on that proof, which you've failed to offer in this reply.
Comment: "Anyone, including yours truly, can write a book and declare it holy, but it is the responsibility of any thinking man or woman to prove it true or no! Surely you would agree with that. As to your comment that both the Tanakh and the concept of creation agree, need I remind you that, long before there was an ancient Israel, virtually all ancient pagan cultures believed in a creation? Is that a "coincidence", to ask your question?"
All cultures believed in a Creation because it was a historically [sic] fact. That's why all cultures believed in a flood, and many other similarities to the Tanakh. Far from presenting a problem this is actually a proof of the Tanakh's validity.
Most cultures have a creation account based on the battles of gods (the elohim mentioned in your Tanakh), which is mythology and is not a historical fact, as you contend. Furthermore, the legends of these cultures did not have "many other similarities to the Tanakh", as you state. What can be proven as fact is that the Tanakh contains many similarities and outright plagiarisms from these cultures. I can say this because the ancient records of these cultures are still preserved, whereas the earliest date of your Tanakh isn't even close to their antiquity. If you want to prove that your Tanakh is the original, the prototype from which these other cultures borrowed, then produce an original that predates these myths. Otherwise, stick to your faith-in-men argument, as it's all you've got!
Comment: "You're right, an all-powerful creator would not need anyone to heal on his behalf. But how can you honestly tell me that it is his/her purpose or desire to heal anyone?"
His/her? Do you mean to tell me you entertain the notion that a Creator might have a gender and that it might be female?
No, I don't think the creator has a gender, but then I have no proof one way or the other. I use "his/her" in this instance because your Tanakh tells me that your god created male and female in his image. So, "God" must be both male and female, or a male and female—which makes sense when we consider that the Genesis authors use the plural "elohim" for the "God" of creation. (See my study on Satan for the connection of the Genesis creation account to Babylonian mythology.
Sometimes it is the will of Yihweh to heal the righteous. Sometimes it is not. It is not our place to question His will or to judge Him. We are the creation and He is the Creator. We have no right to pass judgment on Him, it is He who judges us. It is not enough to love Yihweh. We must fear Him as well. Yihweh is equally a God of mercy and of wrath.
This is a long-established Christian excuse for a religious condition I call "healing-failure." How convenient to teach that those who suffer through the pains of the damned on their death bed, are not to question "His will." Furthermore, we have every right to judge Yahweh: Judge him by his word; judge him by his failures to perform his promises; judge him by history; and judge him by science. If "He" wanted it otherwise, then why not make a race of mindless robots to do and die without question? You say it's not enough to love Yahweh, but to fear him. I'll buy that—if I must believe in the Yahweh of your Tanakh, who sends lying spirits to tempt people after which he murders them as a "punishment." I would also greatly fear a god who lies to his people; who sends his "holy" armies to plunder, rape and massacre whole villages, including new-born infants; who conspires with his "holy" chosen ones to defraud, and debauch and then condemn others to death by stoning for doing the same things! Yes, "fear" is a word and condition that best describes the worship of your god, Mr. ben Lewi!
Comment: "Outside the Tanakh, you cannot, which takes us back to the reliability of that source. Your statement about Yahweh's will is the same smokescreen I witnessed for forty years! It hides the dismal record of failure by religionists, Christian or Jewish, who preach divine healing."
It is not a smokescreen. I never promised anyone healing. I have always said "IF" it is the will of Yihweh you will be healed. Sadduqim are the only Jews today who preach against medicine. In fact Rabbanites will take medicine made from unclean animals and violate the dietary laws in the name of "saving human life." As if human life were more important than obeying the Torah! They are guilty of an unspeakable crime. Nothing is more important than our obeying the Torah fully. Samson died a martyr to kill enemies of Yihweh.
You, sir, are teaching the concept of divine healing, and condemning anyone who goes to a medical practitioner as a sinful wretch! You do this by putting the "fear of God" into those poor timid souls who have a life-time of religious abuse to keep them listening to men like you. Then, when the body fails to heal itself, as it was designed to do with no god needed, you make excuses about the person failing for some reason (usually "sin"), or that it wasn't Yahweh's will, etc. If doctors and medicine aren't part of Yahweh's will, then when people go to those sources, they should all die, which would prove you right.
If rabbis allow their followers to seek out medical aid, then all I will say is "God" bless them! At least they are not ignorant and uncaring enough to preach a pro-death "divine healing" message to the poor ignorant masses. Further, I will tell you now that I would trade all the Tanakhs in the world to save one single human life—even yours, Mr. ben Lewi!
And what does the myth of the whore-mongering wretch Samson have to do with healing?
Comment: "I will say this: I've seen or heard of "healings" that seemed nothing short of miraculous, but they cross the lines of every religion on earth and no religion—including atheists."
When an atheist, skeptic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Rabbanite etc. is "healed" it is not true Divine healing. Perhaps their sickness has temporarily subsided or is being masked somehow. But they cannot obtain true healing from Yihweh.
You can not prove this statement, sir, any more than you can prove that your "Yihweh" is a god or can heal!
Comment: "Why is it good for people to die painful deaths? Tell me, what purpose does that serve? You don't have to answer, because I know what you will say (I used to say it myself): So that they can learn some much-needed lesson before they leave this life. What lesson? The lessons of a man-made book of rules? Or the lessons of a self-proclaimed "man-of-God."
Actually my answer is different from yours. People sometimes suffer and die painful deaths because they are hated by Yihweh! He hates those who are evil. If they have sinned against Him they are evil and they need to be punished. Sometimes righteous people face painful deaths. A good example would be all the unborn children and young infants who die. Of course they have done nothing to deserve a painful death. And they deserve our compassion. Some times people die because they are killed by others and Yihweh has given us free will so He allows this to happen. Sometimes the righteous are killed by a natural disaster or by sickness.
Looking around this world with all its disease, death and destruction, this "Yihweh" of yours must spend all his time sitting up there on his little flat circle hating everyone, except you! The odd thing is that he doesn't seem overly concerned with the billions of "godless" Chinese over in China, or all the other "heathens" in other parts of the world, just those in the West who commit the "sin" of seeking medical aid.
You tell me that this god of yours turns a blind eye to the safety of his righteous followers? Put this on top of his lies, arbitrary murders and his tempting people to sin so that he can punish them—and carefully consider this "god" you're asking people to follow!
If it is Yihweh's will it must be right. He has given us all life, and He has the right to take away life at any time for any reason. Why do horrible things sometimes happen to completely innocent people? It is a test. If a parent sees their child horribly killed, will they accept it as the will of Yihweh, or will they curse Yihweh and decide to hate Him because of it. Remember Avraham was asked to offer his son as a sacrifice. He was ready to do it, but at the last minute Yihweh sent His angel to stop him. So Yihweh tests us today. The question is will we accept the lesson and pass the test.
You must first prove that such a being as "Yihweh" exists before you make pronouncements about his "will" being right. You must first prove that it was this ancient Canaanite god who created the human race, before you tell me that his priests have the right to dictate in his name who should live or die. Actually, I wondered when you were going to use the old excuse that bad things happen to the god-fearing as "a test". I might buy into this excuse if we were discussing a stopped-up toilet, but it's no comfort to a parent burying a child, or a spouse watching their beloved dying of cancer. And, yes, I know the myth of Abraham and his alleged willingness to sacrifice Isaac to a Canaanite deity. This tale might comfort religious fools, but does nothing for those with an once of logic. Any man or woman who has sought to perfectly worship Yahweh, or Jesus, or a brick wall, has every right to expect that these gods will protect them—not murder one of their children for some petty test, the reason for which no one can explain except to mutter something about "God's will!"
Comment: "Well I'll tell you this, I've seen good, decent people who trusted God with all their being, die painful deaths, while some of the worst scum of humanity lived long, fruitful lives (feeding off these God-fearing people) and died peacefully in their beds."
You cannot be "good and decent" and be an Armstrongite, they are guilty of idolatry and as such they are evil people. I don't care if one of them fed the homeless every day and adopted 20 orphan children, if they believe in Jesus they are evil, and will get eternal death! On the Day of Yihweh's Judgment angels will pick them up and throw them into fire. Any good things they did will not be counted for anything. They did not know the real God namely Yihweh. Sometimes evil people live to old age and acquire great wealth. But they cannot take it with them. They shall pay for their sins with eternal death.
Mr. ben Lewi, I'll let you in on something that you might never learn otherwise: Any man or woman who preaches the "holy" trash you've been spewing here has more evil inside them than all the decent Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Taoist or pagan men and women on earth combined! I know you are not totally to blame, that it is the evil and ignorance of your Tanakh that is showing through, but you, sir, are a danger to humanity.
I'm glad you finally threw in a good threatening dose of hell fire! What would a lesson in "fearing the Lord" from a bona fide religious fanatic be without the threat of hell fire?
Comment: "God's will,' you will tell me? What you are really saying is that you have no answers for these major contradictions!"
I see no contradictions. It's easy to say if it were up to you or I, we would make evil people sick and never make innocent people sick. But some times innocent people should be made sick. And some times evil people should be allowed to hurt others. It might sound strange but its part of the test of this world. This current system is a test. In the system of things to come there will be perfection and no innocent people will die or be sick. It is a test. Are we going to learn what we need to know and pass the test or not? That is the question. This life is not as important as you believe it is. I do not fear death at all. There is no reason to fear death if you accept the truth.
"Innocent people" made sick, "evil people" allowed to hurt the innocent? Sounding "strange" isn't the right expression—it sounds like the epitome of evil! Why should Yahweh need to "test" the world? What earthly or heavenly purpose could it serve to abuse a creation he claims to love? The answer to this riddle is that it's another made-up excuse by religionists in a feeble attempt to biblically explain the unexplainable. And, your kind always talk of a better world to come! When is this going to happen, Mr. ben Lewi? The faithfully-ignorant masses have been waiting countless thousands of years for this event!
Comment: "So you would like to see the 'Torah as law' throughout the world? If that comes to pass, then we will again see "men of god" drag people out for some minor infraction and stone them to death in the streets, say for picking up sticks on the sabbath—or for anyone who disagrees with their religious views!"
You're very blunt and to the point, I like that. In your eyes violating the Shabbat is a minor infraction. But it is actually an act of disobedience to Yihweh the Almighty Creator. If one disobeys Him, they deserve to be stoned to death. No matter how small the offense may seem! If someone rejects the truth of Yihweh and worships idols they deserve to be stoned to death. I make no apologies for that fact. Yihweh's justice is perfect.
No! Violating the law of Yahweh isn't a "minor" infraction in my eyes! It's no infraction at all! The so-called sabbath command is nothing more than a day sanctified by the ancient priests so that once a week they could put the "fear of the Lord" in the ignorant and superstitious, while picking their pockets. It was no god who commanded this, but was born of greedy men with as much honesty as the legendary god who sent lying spirits to cause death and destruction in the lives of innocent people. I'm guessing you've never been a father, Mr. ben Lewi, so I'll tell you something with which every sane, loving parent would agree: If a child violated a parental rule, the parent may, or may not punish them. If a punishment is required, it is always a minor one so that the child will learn a lesson. The parent would not drag the offending child outside and stone him/her to death! How could your god, who is supposedly all-wise, all-merciful and who is supposedly trying to teach us some kind of lesson on earth, do any less? No sir! This command didn't come from a loving father in heaven, but a hate-filled vindictive priest who sought to keep an iron-fisted grip over the dumb superstitious people who had the misfortune to believe in Yahweh and believe such a spiritual bastard was his representative on earth!
(For the information of our readers I am not recommending that we take matters into our own hands. As we would quickly be arrested and that would be the end of us, and any good we could impart to this world.) If your right about your religious views and I am wrong, do you not feel the need to punish me for my leading people into error in your eyes? Is it not just that the wicked be punished and those who teach truth enforce it as law?
I'm glad to see that you fear the laws of our land more than you fear the instruction of your god, Mr. ben Lewi, as one will take swift retribution, of which we can be sure, while the other doesn't exist and hence would let you rot in jail! No, I would not punish you for your religious views, or actions, as long as the actions did not harm others. I don't care one wit about your beliefs, or those of a Jew, or Christian, or Moslem, or Hindu, Taoist or any other faith, as long as these people don't try to force it upon me or others.
Comment: "By what authority do you teach me anything?"
By the command of Yihweh. In the Tanakh He commands us to show His people their sins and call them to repent. It is my moral obligation to try and help others. I am going to tell you something. One day when I was near my computer I started feeling dizzy. I fell down and hit my head on the floor. I saw myself descending into the ground at an extremely fast rate. Then the vision ended. I hurt my head and I was glad for that since it prevented me from thinking I had imagined the incident. I believe it was a sign from Yihweh that I will merit eternal death if I do not do this work. I would be worse than Hitler and Stalin combined if I have the truth and keep it to myself. It would be worse than murder because people could face eternal death based on their not hearing this truth. What kind of a person would I be if I kept it all to myself? We should all try to look for truth. But most people are not going to do it on their own. They need help.
Yahweh gave that command to his prophets. Are you a prophet? I'd say not. I'd say that your title of "Chief Priest" is from a self-ordination, and not from a legitimate source. As for your dizzy spells and the concussion you might have suffered, I'd recommend you seek medical aid. In fact, maybe the "vision" "Yihweh" was trying to give you was that if you don't seek aid, a permanent descent into the ground won't be far off. Just a suggestion, Mr. ben Lewi!
Comment: "Show me your commission from Yahweh to instruct anyone. From whence is your title of Chief Priest? If you cite the Tanakh, then prove its validity first. If you are able to do that, then show me your commission or ordination from your god."
I am the leader of Sadduqim Yehudim, as such I am the Kohan Rashi. It is a Biblical term. You will forgive me for not having a singed letter by Yihweh stating that He commissions me. But you have no letter from the Creator either and you claim to be defending the truth as well do you not? I can tell you some interesting facts though. I was born on July 31. July is the 7th month and the number seven is significant. The Seventh Day after Creation was the day Yihweh rested on. I also was born on the last day of the seventh month. I believe it means we are in the end times. I came to realize the truth in the town of Redlands, which means the same as Edom. Today Yihweh's people need to leave spiritual Edom. While I reject astrology as pagan, the sign I was born under is the Leo, the lion symbol of the tribe of Yehuda. The tribe of Yehuda will be the first tribe to repent according to the Tanakh. I think these facts may be more than a coincidence what about you? Perhaps this is evidence that I am supposed to be proclaiming the truth? They are simple enough, and yet provide valuable insights. I do believe it is my mission to proclaim this truth. If anyone wants to know if Sadduqim Judaism is true to the Tanakh they can compare our teachings to the Tanakh and see if they agree. The fact that they do proves I am proclaiming the Tanakh and not my own ideas. The fact is the Tanakh can be proven true scientifically, historically, and intellectually. So we can know that Sadduqim Judaism is true and we do not have to accept it on faith.
You've been railing against "pagan" symbolism throughout this exchange. Now here you are talking about being born in "July", which is a "pagan" month within a "pagan" calendar! Not only this, you talk about the sign of Leo, and try to connect this pagan symbol to the ancient Judahites. Good grief! Have you ever heard about being too close to the forest to see the trees?
Regarding the "Sadduqim Yehudim" (Righteous Jews): Mr. ben Lewi, I suspect that you are a gentile convert to some kind of Karaite-type religion, and have invented a group you named "Sadduquim Yehudim" (Righteous Jews) along with the office of "Kohan Rashi" (Chief Priest), and then conferred the title on yourself. If I'm wrong, please detail your Jewish ancestry, and tell me what Jewish religious authority has recognized your title and your group.
As for me, I don't claim to be doing anything on behalf of any deity. I need no credentials from any minister, priest, church or synagogue. I'm simply telling people what I've proven to be false. I'm giving them the facts and asking them to use common sense to make a discernment. I carry with me no threat of eternal death, or roasting forever in a pit of sulfur. All I offer is a life free from fear and imprisonment from you men of god, which in itself will potentially open many doors of truth. I feel absolutely no need to comment on your "divine" signs from Yahweh!
Comment: "I will be getting into a study of Job in due course. You may not be aware of the problems with that story, but if you continue reading my articles, you will soon see."
I look forward to being able to address the "problems" you think exist in Job.
Comment: "You state that "Sometimes our suffering brings us closer to Yihweh", well the last time I suffered pain, I was diagnosed with pneumonia, and had I not swallowed a bottle of anti-biotic pills, I would likely now be dead. So let me tell you what would bring me closer to Yahweh, and I think I can speak for the majority of humans on earth: If, instead of going to a doctor, I called upon the name of Yahweh and he healed me! It's that simple! No need for smokescreen excuses about "suffering to learn a lesson" or "his divine will", etc., just plain simple action! Nothing would speak so loud as that, and I can assure you, hundreds of millions would be flocking to your teachings!"
Who are you to demand that Yihweh heals you when you snap your fingers? If you want to serve Him and obey His Torah, then you might be healed if your [sic] ill and it is His will to heal you. Since you do not believe in the Torah how can you ask Yihweh to heal you? Why does everyone want something from God but they did not want to give anything in return? Is that fair or just? Why should He heal you when you do not believe in His Torah?
Who am I? I'm a man who has the presence of mind to know when someone is teaching mythology as fact. When I promise someone something, I keep my promise, unless hell or high water prevents it. I ask no less than this from any god. On second thought, I take your point. I forgot we are dealing with a deity who is a notorious liar, and is a god who created both good and evil. (Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD [Yahweh] do all these things.") This means it was Yahweh who created disease, and, as he demonstrates in his Tanakh, lies about healing people he has afflicted in the first place.
Why should God bless America when America tells God to stay out of the classroom and out of the government? Don't we owe our Creator our obedience? Today we have condoms given out at school but kids cannot pray there. Religion is trashed and evolution from apes is taught. A big bang is said to have created the universe. Today children feel that life is cosmic accident. Columbine was not a surprise to me. It was the result of a worldview [sic] taught and approved by the schools. Without religion, sex, drugs and rock n roll will fill the void in the hearts of our America's youth! In some schools abortion inducing birth control is even given out. And the school teachers will drive students to the abortionists office. Why can we not have the Commandments on the wall but we can have condoms in school? Perhaps before someone has the audacity to demand God Blesses something again they should first ask themselves what they have done for God lately? If I had a relative who visited me whenever they needed money or help but could not care less about me most of the time and never visited on other occasions I'd think they are a little bit selfish. Wouldn't you?
I've not asked your God to bless me or anyone else. I've only pointed out the deficiencies of your god's "holy" book. Your tirade here is something of a double standard. The religion that was once taught in public schools was Christianity, which you say is an evil. So, why are you lamenting its passing from public schools? I don't agree with "free sex" for adolescents, but if they are going to have sex, then I'm all for sex education and giving away condoms so that when these kids finally grow up, they won't have had a baby or two, or a venereal disease, or AIDS! Now let me tell you about audacity: You have that and more for demanding people to worship a god that is vindictive, dishonest, murderous and is, in fact, lacking in any virtue or morality. Why would anyone want to walk in the ways of such a monster? In fact, the next time you talk to your god, how about recommending that he post a copy of the Ten Commandments on a nearby heavenly cloud, and obey them for a change?
Comment: "As to the lady you judge, she didn't go to a doctor for treatment, only diagnosis."
Yes, its part of my job to judge and condemn others for their sins and I shall try not to shrink back from it. Yihweh has called me to do it.
You sir, are a self-appointed judge of a made-up religion representing a book of hate, murder and destruction from a non-existent god. I've no use for the New Testament, but here I'll let another non-existent god sum up my thoughts about you and your tirades: Matthew 7:2: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (This is teaching, by the way, reflects Buddhist karma!)
I am against going to doctors for diagnosis as well. They are pagan priests of the cult of medicine.
Yeah, yeah, whatever!
Comment: "Once the doctor told her she had cancer, she continued her faith in Yahweh and died a horribly painful death—but then I forgot, she believed in the wrong Yahweh, or Elohim, as you call him here."
That's right she did unfortunately. Yihweh takes no delight in the death of the wicked. He would rather they repent and serve Him. But we must choose to do that before it is too late.
Well, maybe "Yihweh" doesn't take delight in the death of the wicked, but he sure in hell takes delight in the death of the innocent. Let me give you an example: Samuel 15:3: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling." What possible sin did the infants and suckling babes in the above fairy tale commit? None! But such a minor detail never stopped your god from sending a sword-wielding army to hack infants, children or pregnant women into hamburger!
Comment: "It always comes back to an excuse for failure with you ministers of the "Lord" does it not?"
I never claimed to have the power to heal anyone. Yihweh alone can heal. He is worthy of all the honor and praise not me! I do not "fail" to heal people. I never try to heal them. The healing I direct them to is not my own but from Yihweh. I pray for others but I make no promises about if they will be healed or not unlike the Armstrongites who's practice seemed to be to promise healing to everyone who professed to accept their teachings. I never throw people to the ground like Benny Hinn and some other famous televangelists and pronounce them healed. That's a different religion and not part of Sadduqim Judaism.
I never said you made the claim to heal. I've accused your god of being a myth and his "holy" book nothing but a book of superstitious contradictions, which you are perpetuating, and thus causing immeasurable harm to your fellow humans. Maybe your methods are not those of Benny Hinn or Herbert W. Armstrong, but those who put their faith in your teachings can wind up just as dead!
Comment: "The fact is that the wonderfully designed human body will usually heal itself, if left alone. When that happens, and someone has been anointed for the ailment by a "minister," Yahweh gets the praise; when the condition is more serious and the person dies, or suffers for years as the ailment advances and ravishes, then it's "God's will," or "God is teaching the person a lesson." How convenient!"
Since all things are the will of Yihweh, how could He not merit the praise? He sustains the universe at all times. It may sound "convenient", but it is logical is it not? If He wants someone to stay sick He can make them stay sick. And if He wants to kill someone they will be killed.
"Logical"? It's "logical" to praise someone or something who is the author of suffering, evil, death and destruction? You are right about one thing, and that is that "all things are the will of Yihweh"! But, once again let's notice what that "will" is: Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD [Yahweh] do all these things." Now consider Genesis 1:31: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Your god created evil, which brought about the downfall of Adam and Eve. He created disease, death, destruction, warfare, rape, plunder, the priesthood, torture, religion, homosexuality, pagan gods, devils, cancer, etc., and he says it is all good, VERY GOOD! The lesson here is that the Tanakh teaches that evil is from Yahweh, and that evil is good!
Comment: "On the other hand, if that person breaks down and goes to a doctor, and the doctor saved their life, then Yahweh get's the praise as healing the person in spite of their lack of faith; or, if the person has waited too long on Yahweh's promised healing and dies, then they died because of their lack of faith; or, as you point out, because they believed in and trusted the wrong Yahweh!"
If one goes to a doctor they will not be healed by Yihweh. I never claim that everyone who is not healed dies because of a lack of faith. You are confusing me with Mr. Armstrong. I claim that Yihweh's will must always be done. Sometimes it is the will of Yihweh for a righteous man to get sick and die a terrible death or be brutally murdered. The Tanakh will bear that out.
It is a great comfort to me to know that "Yihweh" doesn't interfere when I go to see my doctor. Given his dismal record of healing, combined with his arbitrary bouts of murder, torture and destruction, his interference would mean that medical offices and hospitals would be giant death factories! And tell me: what are these great lessons that righteous people need to learn, so much so that your god afflicts them with the most horrific suffering imaginable?
Comment: "What I'd like to ask is this: If all of these sick, deceived people believe in the wrong Yahweh, then why doesn't he make that known to them."
If they sought truth He would make it known to them. It's up to them to search for truth. Yihweh is not going to send an angel to their house with a letter for them on a gold platter. We are all obligated to search for truth and we do not have forever to do it.
So, out of all the billions of people on earth, and the countless billions who have lived before them, only you have the truth! If I had a dime for every time I've heard you "men of God" make that claim, I could afford to hire a secretary to type these tiresome replies! And, I don't expect Yahweh to send an angel with a gold platter and letter; all he had to do was produce a book that was error-free, scientifically feasible, and then keep his word when he made promises. That's nothing more than I ask of any human who produces a book, so I don't think it's too much to ask of your god. I don't know about anyone being obligated to search for truth. I would say that the more astute have a driving desire for the pursuit, and they are not afraid to abandon myth when it stares them in the face—unless, like the patriarch Jacob, they have a streak of larceny and want to turn it into a commercial enterprise.
Comment: "I mean, many of these people fast and pray for years seeking him, so you'd think he would have led them to your brand of truth. By the way, where did you get your revelation about healing and all its pitfalls?"
They are not seeking truth and are closed to it. It is their own fault they have not left idolatry. I have studied the Tanakh and I have accepted its teachings on healing. I am sure you will quickly point out the Armstrongites seem to have had some similar perspectives on healing. I have read their works and they raised some good points. But I will also point out the ancient Sadduqim rejected medicine as well as the Ananite Jews. "They refused medical attention because they believed that God alone could heal." (Jews in Exotic Places by Ken Blady, 2000, pg. 123) "It was also forbidden to them (Karaites) to light a fire on Shabbat for the benefit of a childbearing woman, even if her life be thereby jeopardized-- but in any case, as Anan interpreted literally Exodus, 15, 26, "I am (Yihweh) the Lord that healeth thee", he accordingly prohibited the use of medical aid. The act of circumcision on the eighth day, if it happens to be a Sabbath, was to be performed at the close of the Sabbath so that the work of healing may take place on Sunday." (Exotic Jewish Communities by Schifra Strizower pgs. 128,129) Today modern Karaites ignore Anan's teachings on medicine.
If these Ananite Jews refused to light a candle on the sabbath to save the life of a child-bearing woman, then they deserved her fate and a lot worse! I'll tell you this, I would wager good money that the damned fool who made up that command was a man! And if, by some "miracle," he had to birth a child, I'll further wager that a new "understanding" of the situation would have been instituted. Now, if you want to find my views on the pagan rite of circumcision, then go to my "Tanakh Study Page." Mr. ben Lewi, the god you've been preaching in your reply is enough to make any sane religious person turn to atheism!
Comment: "Ah, the old Catholic Catechism teaching about the "mysteries" coming out here. It's the oldest trick in religion—"it's not given for us to know the mysteries of God!" Translation: I can't answer that!"
There are some questions I cannot answer. Unlike the pope I never claim infallibility, and unlike most Christian Evangelists, I do not claim that God whispers His truth into my ears throughout the day. Unlike the Rev. Pat Robertson, God never tells me about someone in pain in some far away land who is being healed that very instant. Nor do I claim to have been visited by angels as Joseph Smith claimed. All of my truth I have arrived at because Yihweh revealed it to me, because I chose to study His Tanakh and rely on it rather than the words of men.
Let me get this straight: You rely on the words of Yahweh, which, you say, are found in "His Tanakh". But, from Genesis to Revelation (for any Christians who might be reading this), each book is clearly the work of men (the five books of Moses, the Psalms of David, the book of Jeremiah, the book of Isaiah, etc.). Moreover, these books show unmistakable evidence of heavy editing over countless centuries, while in the possession of some of history's most corrupt priests. The word of Yahweh? Mr. ben Lewi, what you have with your "holy" book are the words of men claiming to be the words of a god!
I cannot tell you the relationship of Yihweh to time. When He created it and how He created it and exists with it. I read a book on the subject and it gave me a headache. By the time I was done I was no better off than before in my understanding of the issue.
Sounds like you were reading the bible!
I think He was trying to tell me I was out of my element and we cannot understand. I cannot tell you everything about Yihweh because our finite minds cannot comprehend all of His perfection. How can the finite understand all the deep truths of God?
As I said, the old Christian excuse of the "higher mysteries of God"! But, let me add that if you were out of your "element" when reading the above mentioned book, then how can you denounce science as a fraud, and uphold the Tanakh's flawed science as divine truth?
Comment: "No, I don't realize that the Arab nations (those who practice Islam as a state religion) are more "righteous and more enlightened" than the west. Do I need to enumerate all the abuses perpetrated by those regimes in the name of Allah, who is essentially the same deity as Yahweh?"
You claim to oppose abortion and to oppose children dressing in a sexual way. Good. Is it not interesting that in Arab nations women tend to dress more modestly and babies tend to not be murdered by abortion as often? Is it a coincidence or does it have something to do with a value system that the West does not have? I never claimed they are perfect and I disagree with them on a great deal. I merely said they are more righteous than the West today. And I stand by that. It seems self-evident.
Women dress more modestly in Arab countries because in many of these places, they would be seized by a mob of religious fanatics and whipped, and/or stoned to death. These are the same societies that treat women as slaves, and subject them to horrible abuses, such as female circumcision. "Righteous"? You mean self-righteous fanaticism!
Comment: "No, I don't consider all religions as 'madness'. In fact, I don't give a second thought to those who keep their religion to themselves; it's the fanatics who don their sanctimonious robes and thunder "thou shalts" to the rest of the world, that scare me—especially when they make their way into positions of power, such as those I mention in my open letter."
How can someone keep something to themselves if they believe it is true? If I have a really nice cake that I have made and I am a nice person does it not seem reasonable that I might want to invite other people over and let them share it too? If you have something good or something you think is good would you keep it all to yourself? I have an obligation to my fellow man to present them with truth. It's the most loving and compassionate thing I can do as a human being. Its more righteous than feeding the homeless, I am offering people the truth that leads to everlasting life. The tree of life is better than the trees of this land. The truth that can set all men free from the bondage of Babylon. This truth is more valuable than life itself; it can give eternal life, and true peace of mind, and only it can do that.
I'd hardly compare your "revealed knowledge" of slavery, stoning-murder and buying and selling wives to a "nice cake". If I had to, it would be to a "nice cake" laced with arsenic! Your real obligation, Mr. ben Lewi, is to first learn the truth before you preach it to others. You say you're offering people "everlasting life", but you forgot to add that such a thing is possible only if your vindictive god or one of his priests doesn't kill them first for some minor infraction, like picking up a stick on the sabbath!
Comment: "I say they 'scare' me because history amply demonstrates that when such men gain power, they turn it on the helpless. For one instance, the theology you preach would have gotten you thrown into prison in the Europe of the Middle Ages and tortured—and eventually killed, if you didn't 'repent' your 'evil' on your knees before a bishop."
Suppose I was arrested and tortured and killed for my religion. It would be an honor to die for proclaiming the Torah of Yihweh. I cannot think of a greater Being and greater cause to die for. It would be my pleasure and my honor to become a martyr if I had to do so. They can kill the messenger but they will never kill the message. If I die, Yihweh will raise up another to do what I am doing now.
Well, who am I to deny you your honor!
If something is true does not the government have an obligation to proclaim it and suppress opposing positions? Of course it does. How are we going to progress as a society if it does not? I am not opposed to social engineering if it is truly for the betterment of man. The government's job should be to enforce the Torah as law, not to make sure seniors can afford prescription drugs!
The government's job is to stop regulating people's lives. That's the reason my ancestors (one of whom, by the way, signed the Declaration of Independence), fought King George. My ancestors also fought that war so that I could be free from religious tyranny, the likes of which you are advocating.
I would be happy to see the U.S. for example embrace Sadduqim Judaism, establish a Committee for the Suppression of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue and combat other religions. I would like to see the public burning of infidel books. I would like to see the government burn up public libraries in flames with only a few books spared the torch.
You are starting to make me believe in reincarnation here, Mr. ben Lewi! You should seriously consider that, in a past life, you were a Jesuit priest, lighting fires under heretics and forbidden books!
I would be very pleased, and it would fill my heart with joy to see the works of HaSatan destroyed and those honoring Yihweh promoted by the government.
And it would fill my heart with joy if you'd get on with your proof that the Tanakh is the word of God, which is what this debate is supposedly about. (For those not familiar with Hebrew, Mr. ben Lewi uses the Hebrew words "ha-satan" (the adversary) in reference to the mythical being known as Satan in Christianity and in some Jewish sects. For a complete history of this subject, see my booklet, The Hell You Say! A Study of Satan and a Human Tragedy, posted on this web site.)
I would like the government to burn down sleazy liquor stores and all strip clubs. I would like to see officers with rods looking for immodestly dressed women and men to track down and appropriately punish. I would like to see Buddha statues smashed by the police. I don't think the Taliban did anything wrong by blowing up Buddha statues. I would have done the same thing if I were in their shoes. I would consider it a SIN not to do so. I actually believe my religion is true and take it seriously unlike most "religious" people today.
Have you ever considered moving to Iran, Mr. ben Lewi?
I would like to see the Torah obeyed and the logical steps taken to bring society as close as possible to the spirit of the Torah. I would like to so alter life for my followers as to make it virtually indistinguishable from ancient Yisra'el!
The only comfort I take from reading these words, Mr. ben Lewi, is knowing that your god isn't real, and that the hell-on-earth you describe in the above tirade will never come to pass!
Comment: "You are not clear on some of your points, but I'm guessing that you consider arranged marriages, multiple marriages, slavery, killing those you designate as heretical, etc., as divine, unquestionable commands, and are criticizing those of us who don't advocate such abuse, as being uncivilized?"
Let me elaborate. I support arranged marriages, polygyny, slavery, patriarchy, and all other institutions supported and condoned by the Torah and practiced in ancient Yisra'el. I do not advocate getting into a confrontation with the government however as that would be unwise. I am saying we should obey the Torah always. And we should only violate the laws of the government if we absolutely must do so in order not to violate the Torah. I support arranged marriages. Imagine how much more peaceful the young people of America would be if their parents choose [sic] a spouse for them and they did not have to go through a string of failed relationships? Or if a man bought his wife from her father and did not "date" her before their marriage.
Of course you condone slavery, because the Israelites were spared this hell-on-earth existence, therefore exempting you from this prospective horror in the Torah society you envision. As to buying a woman to use as a "wife," in case you don't know it, that is called prostitution. I will add that your words of praise for slavery demonstrate the utter depravity of the Tanakh and the spiritual bastards who advocated this plague!
True love is based on shared ideals and commitments not physical attraction. Dating leads to sexual immorality and it is itself an immoral act. Men and women should be segregated strictly. The morality of the Torah is perfect. To even think of evil is a sin. Iyyov/Job said "I have made a covenant with my eyes, how then shall I look upon a maid." If everyone had an arranged marriage the world would be a better place. Women out number men, if polygyny is not practiced some women will be condemned to being single and alone forever. Is that your idea of compassion? Should they not be able to get married and have children too?
You ask about my compassion for single women? I take your point! How selfish of me to suggest that women should be allowed to fall in love and choose their own mates, instead of being bought and sold like mares in heat! Now let me ask you this: If Yahweh didn't want people to have sex, or think about sex, then why did he create sexual desire to begin with?
Polygyny [sic] would also prevent some divorces. It is absolutely part of a healthy society. The Torah says Avraham was righteous and he had wives and concubines. If the Torah is our standard we cannot consider polygyny to be wrong.
I'll say it again: Prove that this book of slavery, deceit, murder and mayhem, is the word of any deity! Until you can do this, all your rants about "righteousness" are worthless!
A civilized society must be based on the Torah. I consider America and the West today to be among the most uncivilized parts of the world. Look at all the evil that we are allowing to exist? Not only is the West allowing it, it is actively promoting it. The schools today give out condoms and tell kids to go forth and fornicate. Hollywood stars change their spouses and significant others with every change of weather. Rap stars sing about shooting police and taking drugs. The West is the most dangerous and immoral place on earth. Many of our freedoms are dangerous, and should not be allowed. Our culture is tearing itself apart and cannot survive much longer. An Orwellian style regime instituted by our irreligious president is not the solution. What we need is a true theocracy. All those you [sic] disobey Yihweh will eventually pay for it.
Yes, yes, yes, but is the Tanakh the word of God? You say it is, so prove it!
Comment: "Well, if having one wife, not owning another human being and stoning to death a man or woman who disagrees with my views is uncivilized, then count me in that group!"
Do you think it is morally wrong to have more than one wife and if so why? If a parent can love all their children equally, why cannot a husband love his wives equally and treat them all the same? Some women like that arrangement. In Africa women welcome their husband taking a new wife since she can ease their workload, and they welcome the friendship. Since you do not accept the Torah, and do not believe in any book as being sacred, how do you know polygyny, patriarchy, and slavery are wrong? In some cultures they are socially acceptable in others they are looked down upon. Do you think the U.S. is somehow superior in terms of morality? How can you be sure anything is right or wrong without a comprehensive guide book on life from our Creator. I have such a book and it's called the Tanakh. By the way kidnapping [sic] to obtain slaves is forbidden.
No, I don't think it "morally wrong" for a man to have multiple wives, if the man and women involved want the arrangement. I would not oppose a woman doing the reverse, if the men were willing. In other words, I could care less what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. To me slavery is wrong because I believe that no man or woman should involuntarily live the life of a work animal for the benefit and enrichment of another person; and any god who says differently, is no god but a slave owner disguising himself as a god while writing a "holy" book!
Today we put men in jail to be sodomized. I think it would be better to sell into slavery those who cannot pay off debts they owe? Here are some good observations on the subject: Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) commented that the 10th commandment places slaves "under the same protection as any other species of lawful property . . . That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews . . . How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments-how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?"
Well, in theory our government doesn't put men in jail to be sodomized. That many of them suffer this fate, is a travesty that needs correction. But, what else is new? Governments are corrupt! As for the rest of this slave-justifying nonsense, I thank you for offering a valid reason why I'm opposed to Orthodox Judaism and any other form of religion!
Not all that long ago slavery was defended in America. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America observed correctly that: "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God . . . it is sanctioned in the Bible . . . it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Good ol' Jeff Davis! I had no idea he was astute enough to lay this evil at the door of the one who dreamed it up! His words are good backing to my determination to expose the bible for the book of hate and destruction that it is!
Comment: "Now, for the record, I'm opposed to abortion and I'm opposed to children acting and dressing in a sexual manner, all of which is the fault of those running our society; but I'll tell you something else to which I'm opposed, and that's self-appointed spokesmen for "God" dictating the meaning "sin" to the rest of the world and ramming it down our throats! That's the antithesis of progress in my opinion!"
I am glad you are opposed to abortion and children acting and dressing in a sexual manner. I think your standards of morality are higher than most skeptics. And I am sure you would recognize that. It probably has something to do with your religious background. Most skeptics see abortion as acceptable. They consider sexualizing children to be acceptable. May I ask how do you get your morality? I would like to see you take these positions to others in the skeptic community?
It has been my experience that most "skeptics" have a higher degree of morality than most bible-thumping fanatics I've encountered. I feel that anyone with a high degree of compassion for all living things, which I have, can see harmful things and detest them. That's morality. I read of an unborn child, the most defenseless creatures imaginable, being ripped from the womb of its mother, who should be the one person on earth most willing to die in the child's defense, and it grieves me. That's morality. I see young children becoming pregnant and suffering the consequences, or dying of AIDS, and I want to change the situation. That's morality. I read stories of rape and the horror that comes with this act, and I want to stop it. That's morality. I read about someone being attacked, robbed and murdered, and I want justice. That's morality. This compassion I feel does not stem from any "holy book," or a fear of some god, but from a characteristic born within me. That, sir, is where I get my morality!
And you say abortion and children dressing in a sexual manner are the fault of those running society? Really? What do you think they could do to change things?
By offering them something better than a book of contradictions, slavery, murder, theft, abuse of women, and a vengeful god that may, or may not, kill them for a minor infraction. No wonder so many young people rebel against this "Christian" society, and against men like you!
Most skeptics would cringe at the notion of imposing our morality upon the masses. And since you take a dim view of theocracy how are you going to impose moral standards on society? And what is going to motivate people to be good and righteous? Do you think Joe Citizen on the street is qualified to decide a code of morality and ethics on his own?
"Joe Citizen" on the street is just as qualified to write his own book of moral codes as the pagan Canaanite priests of yore, who enriched themselves by a set of standards they invented in the name of a pagan desert god. And, let me tell you something else: The atheists against whom you rail, were, for the most part, men and women of superior character. They needed no god or "holy" book to do the right thing. Indeed, probably the most righteous thing they ever did was to abandon and denounce your Tanakh for the worthless fraud that it is!
From what sources should he draw this code form? [sic] The various worldly philosophers perhaps? If you say Spinoza, Kant and Nietzsche most people will think your talking about a TV show, or a law firm.
Have you ever read Spinoza, Kant or Nietzsche? I have and they make more sense than what you've been spewing in this debate. And, if most people think Spinoza, Kant and Nietzsche are "TV shows", then why don't you join me in educating people about alternative ideas, instead of advocating that we burn libraries while jumping into your bottomless pit of ignorance?
And since people have honest disagreements, how can one be sure his ethical code is perfect if it contradicts that of another person in some ways? How can we be perfect without a book from God?
One more time: Prove your book is from God!
If you rid the world of spokesmen for God as you call them, the world would sink to a low you could never imagine.
It couldn't sink any further than the world you envision—a world of public stonings, buying and selling wives, buying and selling human cattle, and ramming a book like the Tanakh down the throats of humanity.
Bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, rape, murder, and all manner of perversion would become normalized.
As I keep pointing out, your holy book has a blunt statement from Yahweh taking the credit for creating all these evils. (Isaiah 45:7) In Genesis 1:31, the same deity says that what he created was good! Very Good! If that is the case, then how can you, who uphold Yahweh as all-wise and all-good, condemn bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, rape and murder as evil? Evil is good, and good is evil? Which is it? We can't ask Yahweh, because he doesn't seem to know!
Today sodomy is now considered morally acceptable by most. What do you think of sodomy? It creates and spreads disease. As does adultery, fornication, and other things forbidden in the Tanakh. Is it not interesting the Tanakh's laws if followed protect people from the results of these vices? Or is it another coincidence, that the moral laws of the Tanakh are so well written?
The Yahweh that condemns sodomy, fornication, adultery and bestiality as sin, and prescribes death by stoning as a punishment, is the same god who takes credit for creating them in the first place, and pronouncing them good, very good! So, we are left with the conclusion that we must never take Yahweh at his word, which gives new meaning to the admonition that we must learn to fear the Lord! What am I supposed to think of such a being?
Fornication and adultery are terms and sins invented by you priests, and, scientifically speaking, these acts don't create and spread disease. Careless sexual intercourse spreads disease, as can any other careless behavior.
Comment: "I didn't realize I was "railing"; I was hoping to put the evidence fairly before interested readers. Now, Mr. be Lewi, you misunderstand my stand on creationism. It is not the typical wide-eyed fundamentalist version to which you refer, but a scientific-based approached without all the clutter of the Tanakh and/or mythology to get in my way."
Please elaborate. Your website calls you a Creationist and says you have studied evolution. Please tell me how Creation occurred?
This will have to wait for later. Your reply to my reply to your initial communication is far too lengthy at this point to give my response.
Comment: "Maybe you're right about the Afghan people being the modern descendants of Israel (I could certainly believe that more than the doctrine of British-Israelism). But what does that matter unless you can prove the Tanakh as the word of 'God?'"
To clearify [sic] I called the Pushtun's Yisra'eli not all Afghans are Pushtun. Pushtuns may be 40-50% of Afghans. I find it amazing you can ignore the massive evidence showing the US. Britain and Western Europe are of Yisra'eli ancestry from the exiled tribes. Do you mind telling me how you can ignore all the evidence? Or find it unconvincing? I do not use the term "British Israelism" And that's not what I believe. I believe the tribes went to Western Europe, America, Australia, but also to Afghanistan and Japan, which also have good evidence confirming their Yisra'eli identity.
I once believed in and preached British-Israelism. One of the last sermons I ever preached in a Christian church was on the lost ten tribes and their supposed connection to the Anglo-Saxon people. I was in the process of writing a book on the subject, when, after about 400 pages, I started to see the glaring holes in the theory. That's how I can truthfully condemn this nonsense for the fable it is. By the way, by what historical fact do you connect the Anglo-Saxons and Europeans to the peoples of Afghanistan and Japan? The whole thing is a racial question, and in case it has escaped your notice, these groups are not racially kin.
Comment: "Why do I fear a third world war? Gee, I don't know! Perhaps it's the realization that this world, and every life form in it, might well cease to exist! Is that a valid concern in your opinion?"
Why would it matter? If you believe Yihweh has not given man his Torah how can you be sure that anything matters or has any value? Is it not all relative from a skeptical perspective? Does your god tell you life matters? How do you know our lives are more important than those of ants? And how does your god speak to you, and communicate these ideas? If I did not believe in the Torah I'd probably shoot myself in the head.
This may shock your sensibilities, Mr. ben Lewi, but there are billions of people who have lived, who are still living and who are yet to live, and the vast majority have lived lives of meaning without your spook-in-the-sky deity and the ink-and-parchment words of hate, sorrow and misery from his self-appointed ministers and priests. How does my god speak to me you ask? He is doing so now through your letter, which reinforces my conclusions about your Tanakh.
What's the point of living if you cannot understand what life is about?
We will never understand anything about life until we tear down all the barricades you self-appointed priests and prophets have built. I may not have all the answers to life's questions, but I have come to know lies when I see them, and I can thank your "holy" Tanakh for that insight!
Only a cruel creator would create man and leave him here entirely to fend for himself. No, Yihweh gave man the Tanakh so we know what is right and wrong and how we should live and what the purpose of life is. Otherwise we would all go insane and lose any sense of ethics or morality at all.
I would rather suffer the "cruelty" of a god that leaves me "entirely" alone here on earth, than suffer the "kindness" and "mercy" of the deity your Tanakh describes! No god gave you such a book. It is the work of men who desired a harem of women for their selfish sexual gratification, who desired the stolen wealth of those they condemned as "heathens," who enjoyed slaughter, rape and the forced servitude of their fellow humans, who gave you the Tanakh, and such a book can only appeal to the most base-minded!
Comment: "My source of values? I can tell you what my source is not: My source is not a collection of man-made rules that also include heavily enriching the men forcing them on the rest of the world. I feel that common sense should tell most thinking people the difference between right and wrong, provided they haven't been brainwashed by some "man-of-God." Actually, to me the so-called Golden Rule says it all (i.e., do unto others as you would have them do unto you)."
If all men follow the golden rule evil will still continue. It is not a very comprehensive rule.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not a comprehensive rule? I've never met any sane person who would want someone to steal from them, to abuse and/or kill them, sexually assault them or their spouse, lie to or about them, to curse them, strike them, etc. The reason you don't like this simplistic rule is because it robs you priests and ministers of your opportunity to rant, rail, threaten and gather in money without working!
And why do you think most people have common sense? Prove it.
I didn't say that I think most people have common sense. I said common sense should tell most thinking people the difference between right and wrong—if men of god haven't corrupted their thought process with their "holy" books. You ask for proof? I can offer that by recommending you re-read your interpretations of the Tanakh.
I think most people have no common sense and without religion they would be killing each other left and right and eating each other alive. Society would descend into anarchy immediately. Is it ok to have intimate relations with a dead animal or a consenting human of the same gender? Are you going to tell me they are not hurting anyone else so it's ok? Actually they are hurting themselves and society. Sodomy, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery etc are all connected. Once you rebel against morality in one way why not throw it out completely? Is it wrong for unmarried couples to fornicate? Does your god have any moral laws concerning these things? And if not why? Does your god have any dietary laws for man? Today millions of people in America are grotesquely obese and fill their bodies with stuff their dogs should not eat. Does it not make sense that man needs a complete set of rules that govern all areas? Pork is cancerous and filled with trichinosis and disease, pigs are one of nature's garbage eaters. Shell fish are bottom dwellers and eat decaying matter. Interesting how the Torah's dietary laws promote good health? Circumcision helps prevent penile cancer and other problems. The Torah says to do it on the eighth day from birth and now many scientists regard that as the safest time to perform circumcision. The health laws of the Torah are perfect. Have you ever seen one that gives bad information?
You say that without religion men would be "killing each other left and right and eating each other alive"? Religion has been the cause of untold millions—no, billions of deaths, torture, pillage and rape! Speaking of rape, may I ask about this fascination you display over the concept of sexual "sins?" I mean, sex with dead animals? Really, Mr. ben Lewi! No, I don't condone bestiality. Besides the disgusting nature of the whole prospect, any abuse of an animal is abhorrent to me. I don't condone sex between any couple if one party objects. You speak of dietary laws. Common sense should dictate that an animal that eats garbage is not something we should eat. I don't need a make-believe ancient Canaanite deity for this determination, and neither did the scribes who inked this into the Torah. And, if you want to know my opinion of the mutilating pagan rite of circumcision, it is posted on my web site in the "Tanakh Study Page," subheading of "A Study in Genesis."
And for your information. I am not making any money and take no salary from my position as Kohan Rashi. I would like to devote myself to my position full time but we have yet to secure enough support so that I could do so. I am currently unemployed however, and I am spending most of my time on this work anyway. I have spent a great deal of my own money, time and effort for it. I am far from being monetarily enriched. I drive an old used car. I do not have a lot of money. But I feel blessed because I have the truth of Yihweh. I take satisfaction and joy from helping others and proclaiming the Torah of Yihweh. Should Sadduqim Yehudim ever take in massive amounts of money I will still never take an extravagant salary. I will only take enough to support myself and my family and our essential expenses. I am doing this to proclaim truth and not to make money, it has never been about that for me. If I wanted to make lots of money I would become an attorney and not a Kohan Rashi. Before you condemn all religious leaders as moneygrubbers you should visit my house and inspect it for yourself. You have an invitation to do so!
No thank you! After your tirade condemning my beliefs and outlining your plan for my fate, I will decline the offer to get anywhere near you. I am not surprised that you are lacking monetary support for your ministry. Few individuals would willingly submit to the life of which you dream.
I condemn those who would misuse the trust of others and live extravagantly at their expense, obviously they should be chained to a fence and flogged.
Well, I suppose flogging people is a step up from stoning them.
Comment: "What else do you or I need to know? Oh yes, I forgot: You would include sacrificing blood to a deity, giving away your hard-earned money to a priest to buy yourself salvation, and people dying horribly painful deaths so that they can learn a lesson about Yahweh's love! No, I don't think "modernism" has improved the world, and I've never said anything like that. Those are your words, not mine."
No one can buy salvation. It is up to Yihweh who will be saved. No one is eternally saved no matter how much they give.
You are right. We can't buy salvation! But, I'll let you in on another secret: Neither can you get your salvation from a make-believe Canaanite god.
Comment: "The Tanakh can be scientifically proven? Well, demonstrate that for me, please."
I will be happy to continue to do so. There are many ways I can prove the Tanakh I cited verses earlier as scientific proof. What do you think of them? There is also historical and intellectually proof. I have touched a great deal on intellectual proof so far. What do you think of Yehuda? How do you explain that Yehudim/Jews are the most persecuted people on earth, and today they are returning to the land of Yisra'el, just as the Tanakh said would happen? According to Archaeologists Jews are the only ones known to have escaped Egyptian slavery. Jews have survived the holocaust, the crusades, and the pogroms. Israel is faced with enemies on all sides and friends who will betray her for their own interests. Yet Israel persists. Is that not proof as well?
You've yet to scientifically demonstrate anything. You've preached the "truth of Yihweh" but offered nothing to back your claims. You've offered no history, nor even an intellectual argument, unless you consider your rants about slavery, polygamy, floggings, torture, murder and other assorted abuses as intellectual argument. Furthermore, your statement that archaeology proves that the Jews are the only ones escaping Egyptian slavery is totally bogus. They state no such thing, and I challenge you to offer the quote from a reputable source. On top of this, according to your bible, it was twelve tribes of Israel, who were known as Israelites, not the "Jews," who escaped Egyptian slavery. Indeed, you cannot even prove that the people calling themselves Jews are descended from the ancient desert tribe by the name of Judah. A number of historians, including the authors of the old Jewish Encyclopedia, say a large majority are known to have descended from the Khazarians, who were essentially a Caucasian people living in the Steps of Russia in the ninth century AD. Regarding your statement about modern Israel, you must surely know that truly Orthodox Jews denounce the modern state of Israel as illegitimate because its creation and existence defies the Nevi'im (i.e., the books of the prophets). If you are interested, I will direct you to three web sites, out of many, where Jewish historians and writers denounce Zionism: http://www.nkusa.org/ http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
So, Mr. ben Lewi, do your homework before attempting to teach others!
Comment: "You sir cannot prove that the 'most blessed, and powerful nations today' are of Israelite ancestry. Not only am I a professional genealogist, but I've spent years researching that hypotheses, and to state it in blunt terms: It fails miserably! I was personally acquainted with some of the most influential British-Israel advocates, such as Steve Collins and Yair Davidy in Jerusalem, Israel, and I once published Masada Magazine, which pages were full of "Lost Ten Tribes" material, so I'm well versed in that supposed history. I know the book you mention, and have given it serious consideration (we once stocked it at Commonwealth Books). I am also well-acquainted with Professor Terry Blodgett's work, which is much more extensive. He and I had several conversations on this subject, and neither he nor Mr. Mozeson can prove their hypothesis. More than this, seeing how you rail against paganism, the roots of the Hebrew language are traced without doubt to the most pagan of nations in the Near East. There's nothing 'holy' about that tongue, which is the point I feel you are trying to make. The biggest thing you "lost ten tribes" advocates have going for you is the so-called prophecy of the Nevi'im, which takes us back to the Tanakh. If the Tanakh is not the word of 'God,' then it's all a waste of time.""
I find it amazing you can disregard all the evidence proving that the exiled tribes are today in Western Europe the US, Australia and other places. I have intensively studied Mr. Mozeson's book as well as others on Hebrew, and I can say there is not a doubt in my mind that they are accurate. Ivri is the only language in which letters are also used as numbers and in which the words with opposite meanings are often spelled with the same letters but with one set of letters in the exact reverse sequence. Ivri is also the only language in which words have meaningful mathematical values that correspond with teachings from the Tanakh. It can be proven that all words in all languages derive from Ivri root words. Interestingly ancient Alphabets such as Greek and Japanese show some letters that are identical to ancient Ivri and letters in all alphabets follow in their respective order with a sequence of similar letter sounds. In ancient Ivri there were two different forms of writing, this is proven by ancient writing and is recorded in the Midrash. The cubic shaped letter script (Monumental) was used by the Kohanim, and the cursive like script is called the Lapidary or Assyrian script, and is commonly called ancient Ivri at the expense of the cubic script. The Lapidary script was used for everyday writing. Archaeologist Vendyl Jones discovered Ivri words in a picture taken by satellite of Yerushalayim. They are written in the Monumental Ivri script and say "Because [sic] Luz is Yihweh's name of Efrayim." This provides additional proof of the validity of the Torah. Such writing could not possible have been done by man since it can only be seen and read from space. (Return of the Giants By Barry Chamish, 2000, pg 145-148) The cubic script letters sometimes show a type of picture for were to place the tongue for pronunciation purposes. Ivri is written with or without vowel points. Some languages use more Ivri in them than others. It is the duty of all the Sadduqim to learn to read and write ancient Ivri, to study the Tanakh and to know and use the perfect language as much as possible. Zefanya/Zephaniah 3:9 says "For then I will convert the peoples to a purer language, that they may all call upon the name of Yihweh, to serve Him with one consent."
I stand by my comment. The pitiful argument you paint in the above does not compare to the years of research and mountain of evidence I've collected on this subject. However, I will not debate it here with you because it's a useless exercise unless you first prove the Tanakh is the word of Yahweh, or indeed, any deity!
The Tanakh prophesied the Tribes would be at the ends of the earth and the U.S., UK, Western Europe, and Japan are at the geographical extremities of the earth. The flags of most Yisra'eli nations today feature the colors red, white, and blue in some combination or other. These are the colors of the tabernacle in ancient Yisra'el. Avraham's descendants are promised to be a company of nations. (Bereshit/Gen 35:11) Obviously the state of Israel by itself does not fulfill these prophecies. These nations in question have traditions of their Yisra'eli ancestry. Queen Elizabeth of England is said to be descended for King Dawid of Yisra'el. The Star of Dawid is used on the flag of N. Ireland. And on the seal of the United States there are 13 stars forming the shape of the star of Dawid. The Lion and Unicorn on the British coat of arms are symbols of the tribe of Efrayim. Historical proof shows the Scythians were descended from the lost tribes and they became the Western European peoples. Ancient European records bear this out.
Again, I know all this rhetoric by heart—I used to teach it! As a professional genealogist, I can demonstrate the Queen Elizabeth II-to-King David pedigree is bogus. And, how can you use the Star of David as proof of anything, since it's one of the most pagan symbols of the ancient Middle East? You must surely know that its connection to Judaism is a fairly recent event. But, this is all wasted argument unless you first prove the Tanakh to be the word of a deity!
Comment: "Thank you for the last question! I will reverse it and ask how do you explain dinosaurs and man based on Genesis and it's 6,000 year outline for the existence of our universe?"
Actually Genesis does not give a specific age for the universe. Keep in mind the universe and the earth did not get created at the same time. The Hebrew word bara means created out of nothing and is used in Bereshit/Gen 1:1, Gen. 1:2 says the earth was empty and desolated in the original Hebrew it is usually translated without form and void however. So a prior civilization of some kind existed before and was destroyed then the earth was renovated in six literal days. Based on the Tanakh it would appear that our world is about 6,000 years old. The Rabbanical [sic] calendar says it is 5,763 years old.
I know all about the alleged gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and the seven-day creation account that follows. If you maintain that, then the entire universe must have been destroyed between this alleged first creation and the second creation story of Genesis 1:2. I say this because the Elohim (read plural gods here), created stars, a sun and a moon during this alleged second creation. Hence, the sun, moon, earth, stars, man and animals, etc., are only 5,763 years old, according to your rabbinical sources. This utter nonsense is something you cannot prove!
Dinosaurs and man have always existed together and were created together. The historically evidence proves it. You mentioned the book "Tornado in a Junkyard" on your website. This book has a good brief section on that topic. I too reject its appeal to accept Jesus at the end, which detracts from its otherwise good scholarship. The Tanakh mentions a creature called Behemoth which has a tail like a cedar and fits the description of a dinosaur. It also mentions Leviathan a giant sea serpent. Ken Ham has a book called "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" and he has a lot of good information on this. Also There is a book called " Mystery in Acambaro" by Charles Hapgood. Mayan paintings show humans with dinosaurs! An Inca stone shows an incredibly accurate brontosaurus, another Inca stone shows two other dinosaurs. It shows how incredibly accurate dinosaur sculptures were made by natives in South America. Proof that dinosaurs and men lived together! If people are evolving we can expect them to learn more thing