Tag Archives: Allah a violent God ?

God (or Gods)?

23 Nov

God (or Gods)?
Excerpts and Quotes – From The Catholic Church History
By Brother John Raymond

Introduction

Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the

“One and the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world.”
[Ward 1955, 38]


Relationship of God And World

The relationship between God and the world had to be solved.

The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating “Word or Wisdom – the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created – whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him.”
[Guitton 1965, 81]

The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a “mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world”
[Guitton 1965, 81]

The primitive Church had to “reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures.”
[Ward 1955, 39]

This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see.

Arius And His Teaching

Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called the “Father of Arianism” because “Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students. Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy.”
[Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058]

With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: “Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos (‘Logos’ is simply a Greek word for ‘word’) as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.

The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering.”
[Ward 1955, 41]

This teaching of Arius “drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities.”
[Ward 1955, 43]

The Person of Christ “belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was neither God nor man.”
[Ward 1955,42]

Arius Versus The Alexandrian Bishop

Arius’ views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.

Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius’ views. In doing so the Bishop used the term “homoousios” to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance.

Alexander “used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy.”
[Ward 1955, 43, 44]

With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius’ most influential supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius’ views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation.

The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander’s own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.

Constantine And Ossius

With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither was involved in heresy.

The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in Nicaea.

Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated – that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.

Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic Church of Rome). It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia.

That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in Hellenistic thought he “was given by God supreme power in things material and spiritual.”
[Davis 1987, 56]

The Council of Nicaea. The General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.

If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that “daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius.”
[LeClercq 1913, 45]

Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council “Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted.”
[LeClercq 1967, 792]

But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the basis of the Council’s Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position.

“Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement . . . The finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451.”
[Davis 1987, 59]

When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled. The Creed and an Analysis some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth . . . Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;’ and that `He was made out of nothing;’ or who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis or another substance,’ or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,’ the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
[LeClercq 1913, 45]

The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being “begotten of the Father” was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase “begotten not made” was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only.

The creedal statement “true God of true God” was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms “that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine” was the phrase “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father”
[Davis 1987, 61]

This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation. In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son’s co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases “there was when the Son of God was not” and “before He was begotten He was not.”

The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase “He came into being from things that are not.” The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase “He is mutable or alterable.”

Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase “He is of a different hypostasis or substance.” With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished. Terminology Problem With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement “He is of a different hypostasis or substance.”

The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West.

This instance of confusion “points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East’s position.”
[Davis 1987, 63]

A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings.

“First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.
Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being.
Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay.”
[Davis 1987, 61]

The Council intended the first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father.

If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council’s intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and indistinguishable – clearly a Sabellian heresy.

The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.

Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies.

The word was originally used by the Gnostics [1] . The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.

Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used in Sacred Scripture. The Council’s defeat by Arianism. It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be called into question.

Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council’s use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians.
With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.

Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases “from the substance of the Father” and “homoousios.”

Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 “in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression . . . The term `like in substance,’ homoiousion . . . had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula.”
[Barry 1913, 709]

Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were “dissimilar” or anomoios. Another group used the word “similar” or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.

With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.

Both Councils, under the Emperor’s threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula.

“This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year” which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and anomoios.
[Ward 1955, 57]

It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed. The Final Battle. The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.

First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.

Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters alike “it brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups.”
[DeClercq 1967, 793]

Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance.

The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians.

The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance also. By using the term homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers “had never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons.”
[Ward 1955, 58]

Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms what they meant to say was the same.

The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity – one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).

At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding of each others theological terminology.

At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.

Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor. In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.

In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states that “the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established.”
[Davis 1987, 126]

In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them

“sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church.”
[DeClercq 1967, 793]

Conclusion

The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.

The Arian doctrines condemned were the following:

The Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and
in name only.
The Father and Son did not share the same substance.
The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability
and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.

Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.

The Arians took advantage of one of the term’s other meaning, that of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported – anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).

It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the Emperor.

The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.

REFRENCE:

[1] Gnostics – meaning “to know secret or hidden knowledge”; lit., those who know; a mystic order of Christianity. Often known for giving up all worldly matters, often living apart from society and being reclusive, fasting and remaining celibate. Possible forerunners of the sufi orders found amongst some Muslims today.
WORKS CITED:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Vol. 1. Arianism, by V.C. Declercq.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Vol. 8. St. Lucian of Antioch, by P. W. Harkins.
Davis S.J., Leo D. 1987. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787):
Their History and Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc.
Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York: Harper and Row.
Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,  Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 1, Arianism, by William Barry.
Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,
Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic
Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 11,  Councils of Nicaea, by H. Leclercq.
Ward D.D., Bishop J.W.C. 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray and Co. Limited
Advertisements

A List of Biblical Contradictions

23 Nov

A List of Biblical Contradictions
Subject: A List of Biblical Contradictions
By: Jim Meritt
Date: 1992-07-24

All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer’s unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text.

Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark–is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the “clean” ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem–a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ’s last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ’ father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I’ve seen to “explain” these:

“That is to be taken metaphorically” In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN’T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD–which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want..

“There was more there than…” This is used when one verse says “there was a” and another says “there was b”, so they decide there was “a” AND “b”–which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn’t say there WASN’T “a+b”. But it doesn’t say there was “a+b+little green Martians”. This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only “a”) and the only way. I find it entertaining that they don’t mind adding to verses.

“It has to be understood in context” I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes “out of context”. How many of you have gotten JUST [John 3:16] (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

“There was just a copying/writing error” This is sometimes called a “transcription error”, as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was “quoted” wasn’t really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that’s right–I’m not disagreeing with events, I’m disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

“That is a miracle”. Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

“God works in mysterious ways” A useful dodge when the speaker doesn’t understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

God good to all, or just a few?

The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. [PSA 145:9]

And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. [JER 13:14]

War or Peace?

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. [EXO 15:3]

Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen [ROM 15:33]

Who is the father of Joseph?

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. [MAT 1:16]

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. [LUK 3:23]

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher. [MAT 28:1]

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. [MAR 16:1]

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [JOH 20:1]

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

I and my Father are one [JOH 10:30]

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
[JOH 14:28]

Which first–beasts or man?

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [GEN 1:25-26]

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
[GEN 2:18-19]

The number of beasts in the ark

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. [GEN 7:2]

Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth. There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. [GEN 7:8-9]

How many stalls and horsemen?

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KI1 4:26]

And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. [CH2 9:25]

Is it folly to be wise or not?

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. [PRO 4:7]

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. [ECC 1:18]

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [1 Cor.1:19:]

Human vs. ghostly impregnation

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
[ACT 2:30]

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [MAT 1:18]

The sins of the father

Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. [ISA 14:21]

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. [DEU 24:16]

The bat is not a bird

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey,
And the vulture, and the kite after his kind
Every raven after his kind;
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. [LEV 11:13-19]

Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey,
And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
And every raven after his kind,
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. [DEU 14:11-18]

Rabbits do not chew their cud

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. [LEV 11:6]

‘Gerah’, the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated ‘chew the cud’ in the KJV is more exactly ‘bring up the cud’. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that’s that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

Insects do NOT have four feet

Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you [LEV 11:21-23]

Snails do not melt

As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. [PSA 58:8]

Fowl from waters or ground?

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [GEN 1:20-21]

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
[GEN 2:19]

Odd genetic engineering

And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. [GEN 30:39]

The shape of the earth

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: [ISA 40:22]

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them [MAT 4:8]

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: [GEN 3:14]

Earth supported?

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing [JOB 26:7]

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. [JOB 38:4]

Heaven supported too

The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof. [JOB 26:11]

The hydrological cycle

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. [ECC 1:7]

Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? Or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, [JOB 38:22]

Storehouses are not part of the cycle

Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are “days”, “evenings”, and “mornings” before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as “Elohim”, which is a plural, thus the literal translation, “the Gods”. In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that “it was good”.

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam’s rib)

How orderly were things created?

Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three “days”.

God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

How satisfied with creation was he?

God says “it was good” after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.

God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

Moses’ personality

“Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth.” [Num.12:3]

“And Moses was wroth…And Moses said unto them, “Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, … But all the women children … keep alive for yourselves.”
[Num.31:14, 15, 17, 18]

Righteous live?

“The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree.” [Ps.92:12]

“The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart.” [Isa.57:1]

“Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” [Acts 1:18]

“And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests…bought with them the potter’s field.” [Matt. 27:5-7]

Jesus’ first sermon plain or mount?

“And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying….” [Matt.5:1,2]

“And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people… came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said…” [Luke6:17,20]

Jesus’ last words

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.” [Matt.27:46,50]

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost [Luke23:46]

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. [John19:30]

Years of famine

So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? Or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee? [II SAMUEL 24:13]

SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; [I CHRONICLES 21:11, 12]

Moved David to anger?

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah. [II SAMUEL 24]

And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel [I CHRONICLES 21]

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) is mentioned. [Matthew 1:6-16] and [Luke 3:23-31]. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus (peace be upon him). The first one starts from Abraham (verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? And also, How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

God be seen?

[Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9]

God CAN be seen:

“And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.” [Ex. 33:23]

“And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.” [Ex. 33:11]

“For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” [Gen. 32:30]

God CANNOT be seen

“No man hath seen God at any time. [John 1:18]

“And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.” [Ex. 33:20]

“Whom no man hath seen nor can see” [1 Tim. 6:16]

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

“I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy.”
[Jer. 13:14]

“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.” [1 Samuel 15:3]

“The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” [James 5:11]

“For his mercy endureth forever.” [1 Chron. 16:34]

“The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.” (Ps. 145:9) “God is love.” [1 John 4:16]

Tempts?

“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.” [Gen 22:1]

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” [James 1:13]

Judas died how?

“And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself.” [Matt. 27:5]

“And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.” [Acts 1:18]

Ascend to heaven

“And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” [2 Kings 2:11]

“No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, … the Son of Man.” [John 3:13)]

What was Jesus’ prediction regarding Peter’s denial?

Before the cock crow [Matthew 26:34]

Before the cock crow twice [Mark 14:30]

How many times did the cock crow?

And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. [MAR 14:72]

Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. [MAT 26:74-75]

And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spoke, the cock crew.
And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. [LUK 22:60-61]

Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice. [JOH 13:38]

Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
[JOH 18:27]

Who killed Saul

Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together. [SA1 31:4-6]

And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died. [SA2 1:15]

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. [MAT 5:3-11]

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.
Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. [LUK 6:20-23]

Does every man sin?

If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; [KI1 8:46]

If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near; [CH2 6:36]

Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? [PRO 20:9]

For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. [ECC 7:20]

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. [JO1 1:8-10]

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. [JO1 3:9]

Who bought potter’s field

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. [ACT 1:18-19]

And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. [MAT 27:6-8]

Who prophesied the potter’s field?

[Matthew 27:9-10] (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in [Zechariah 11:12-13]

Who bears guilt?

Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ [GAL 6:2]

For every man shall bear his own burden. [GAL 6:5]

Do you answer a fool?

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him [PRO 26:4]

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. [PRO 26:5]

How many children did Michael, the daughter of Saul, have?

Therefore Michael the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. [SA2 6:23]

But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michael the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: [SA2 21:8]

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem [KI2 24:8]

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. [CH2 36:9]

Marriage?

[Proverbs 18:22]

[1 Corinthians 7] (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. [ACT 9:7]

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me [ACT 22:9]

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness
[MAR 1:12]

Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; [JOH 1:35]

(various trapsing)

How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascent ion?

12 [1 Corinthians 15:5]

minus one from 12 [Matthew 27:3-5]

Mathias not elected until after resurrection [Acts 1:9-26]

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them [MAT 28:16]

Judging

The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:” (NIV)
[1 Cor 2:15 “]

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.” [1 Cor 4:5]

Good deeds

“In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (NIV) [Matt 5:16]

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (NIV) [Matt 6:3-4]

For or against?

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. (default is against) [MAT 12:30]

For he that is not against us is on our part. (default is for)
[MAR 9:40]

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. (default is for) [LUK 9:50]

Whom did they see at the tomb?

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
[MAT 28:2-5]

And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. [MAR 16:5]

And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: [LUK 24:4]

And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
[JOH 20:12]

God change?

[Malachi 3:6]

[James 1:17]

[1 Samuel 15:29]

[Jonah 3:10]

[Genesis 6:6]

Destruction of cities (what said was Jeremiah was Zechariah)

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; [MAT 27:9]

nothing in Jeremiah remotely like) [Zechariah 11:11-13]

Who’s sepulchers

[Acts 7:16]

[Genesis 23:17,18]

Strong drink?

[Proverbs 31:6,7]

[John 2:11-11]

When second coming?

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. [MAT 24:34]

Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. [MAR 13:30]

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. [LUK 21:32]

[1 Thessalonians 4:15-18]

Solomon’s overseers

[550 in I Kings 9:23]

[250 in II Chron 8:10]

The mother of Abijah:

Maachah the daughter of Absalom [2 Chron 11:20]

Michaiah the daughter of Uriel [2 Chron 13:2]

When did Baasha die?

26th year of the reign of Asa I [Kings 16:6-8]

36th year of the reign of Asa I [2 Chron 16:1]

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

22 [2 Kings 8:26]

42 [2 Chron 22:2]

Who was Josiah’s successor?

Jehoahaz [2 Chron 36:1]

Shallum [Jeremiah 22:11]

The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

scarlet [Matthew 27:28]

purple [John 19:2]

What did they give him to drink?

vinegar [Matthew 27:34]

wine with myrrh [Mark 15:23]

How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; [Matthew 12:40] gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”, and [Mark 10:34] has “after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again”. As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have “after three days”, but the post-Resurrection narratives have “on the third day”.

REFERENCES:

The King James version of the Bible. quotes provided.

Self-contradictions of the Bible.
William Henry Burr
ISBN 0-87975-416-8

Burr, William Henry, 1819-1908.
Self-contradictions of the Bible/William Henry Burr; with an introduction by R. Joseph Hoffmann. [Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books], c1987.
Series title: Classics of Biblical criticism.
UCB Moffitt BS533 .B798 1987
UCD Main Lib BS533 .B798 1987

Cooper, Robert, secularist.
The “Holy Scriptures” analyzed, or, Extracts from the Bible : showing its contradictions, absurdities and immoralities/by Robert Cooper. 2nd ed., to which is added, a vindication of the work. Manchester, [Greater Manchester] : J. Cooper, 1840.
Series title: Goldsmiths’-Kress library of economic literature ; no. 31887.
UCLA AGS Mgmt H 31 G57 Microfilm

Dean, M. R.
508 answers to Bible questions: with answers to seeming Bible contradictions / M. R. DeHaan. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, [1968?], c1952.
UCSB Library BS538 .D43 1968

Thaddaeus, Joannes, fl. 1630.
The reconciler of the Bible enlarged: wherein above three thousand seeming contradictions throughout the Old and New Testament are fully and plainly reconciled … / by J. T. and T. M. .. London: Printed for Simon Miller …, 1662.
Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1052:9.
UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform

Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679.
Annotations upon the Holy Bible. Vol. II : wherein the sacred text is inserted, and various readings annex’d, together with the parallel scriptures : the more difficult terms in each verse are explained,… The third edition, with the addition of a new concordance and tables, by Mr. Sam. Clark; the whole corrected and amended by the said Mr. Sam. Clark and Mr. Edward Veale .. London : Printed for Thomas Parkhurst [and 6 others], MDCXCVI [1696].
Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1041:1.
UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform

“The x-rated Bible” by Ben Edward Akerley, published by American atheist press, Austin Texas, 1985.

A good source of _literal_ Biblical self-contradictions is (surprise) “Self-Contradictions of the Bible”, written by William Henry Burr in 1859 as a response to fundamentalism. It is currently published by Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst St., Buffalo, NY 14215. P. B. also publishes a large number of books on religious inquiry and biblical critiques, the majority of which have a humanistic/atheistic slant. As far as “Self-Contradictions …” goes, it contains about 140 textual inconsistencies, classified under “Theological Doctrines”, “Moral Precepts”, “Historical Facts”, and “Speculative Doctrines.”

“The Bible Handbook” is a compilation of several previous works by several authors, including W P Ball, G W Foote, and John Bowden. Also, the writing by Mr. Foote is dated 1900, so we see that this is not a new endeavor. _The Bible Handbook_ by W.P. Ball, et al., available for nine dollars from the American Atheist Press, P.O. Box 2117, Austin TX 78768-2117. It’s a collection of biblical contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, immoralities, indecencies, obscenities, unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises. This 372-page volume will give the atheist tons of scriptural ammunition for shooting down the flimsy arguments of the reality impaired.

Additional contributions were given by:

markn@mot.com (DX560 Mark Nowak)
JHAYNES@MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
loren%sunlight.llnl.gov@lll-lcc.llnl.gov
lmoikkan@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
gerry@cs.cmu.edu
gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
icsu7039@caesar.cs.montana.edu
XWUU@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU
bjorn%consens.UUCP@nac.no
EETLO29%TECHNION@TAUNIVM.TAU.AC.IL
refling@envy.eng.uci.edu
mgo@inel.gov
rkp@drutx.att.com
daveh@sequent.com
markn%mot.com@tin.berkeley.edu
aa485@cleveland.freenet.edu (John Strekal)

ANY One to Proove it Wrong ?????????

%d bloggers like this: