All Scripture Is Inspired By God: (2 Tim 3:16)



2 Timothy 3:16 contains the classic claim that the Bible was produced by God, not just men:

All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

– See more at:

Definition of the word, reproof:
reproof Sense: Censure

  • disapproval
  • objection

This God inspired verse in 2 Timothy 3:16 is fascinating because it admits that God’s inspired words is, “for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.”

Because I have since discovered that many Christians replace the real diction of “reproof” with that of “reprove” I must define reprove here for comparison. There are not the same word and have totally different meanings.

Derinition of the word, reprove:

Main Entry:             reprove

Part of Speech:             verb

Definition:             rebuke

Synonyms:             admonish, bawl out, berate, castigate, censure, chew out, chide, condemn, jump down one’s throat, lambaste, lay into, lecture, read the riot act, reprimand, reproach, scold, take to task, upbraid

Reproof is a much stronger word than reprove. It shows tota disapproval or objection.

I have been slapped down again and again for having the temerity of questioning or disapproving of various verses in the Bible because evangelists have always treated any challenge of the Bible as sacrilegious, yet 2 Timothy 3:16 has just declared that that is what the Bible is for, to be corrected and to be reproofed. 2Timothy 3:16 implies that the inspired word of God is fallible and not infallible as most evangelists have presumed. Here, license has been given to question the many inconsistencies and inaccuracies contained in the Bible. And if this is so, this is an admission that the Bible, rather than being “Inspired By God” is actually, “the work of man with all his limitations?” Could man  not be fallible thus projecting God as fallible? Thus through Man’s fallibility, his works in the Bible become fallible, and are man written myths, written to glorify God’s Kingdom on earth. In other words, 2Timothy 3:16 is an admission, that the Bible is written by Man for surely God must be infallible if “he is omniscient and omnipotent.” And if he was not omniscient and onmipotent he cannot be God.

However, from the time of Moses seeing the Burning Bush in 1314 BC or even from the creation of Adam in 3760 BC and before, that has never been an incident where God’s omniscience or omnipotence has been shown to the world. We are all still awaiting to see evidence of his existence.

It is quite obvious that we see but dimly what is in the Bible. When I was told about Adam and Eve for the first time, I was probably about 5 years or 6 years old and was given the simple version of Adam and Eve. I believed every word that was told me as a child, without question. But I knew that man was made in God’s image, and that God loved his creatures that he made, but I never questioned why God planted the tree of wisdom bearing lovely fruit near Adam and Eve and told them not to eat of it? Was God guilty of planting temptation under men’s noses to test if he as as perfect as God himself? Would a Father, who loved his children, play Russian Roullete with his children for the fun of it? Would that be my image of a loving father if I failed? I think a onmipotent and omniscient God would not be such a childish and fiendish God.
Genesis 2:15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.Genesis 34. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.6. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.7. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

8. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

9. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10. And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12. And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

22. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

As a child of 6 years, I believed in the creation of Adam and Eve but I already knew that the story of eating the forbidden fruit was but a parable of “temptation” and “disobeying the commands of God” and the price of disobeying the Lord was rejection.

And as I became a man, I also realised that Adam and Eve were Christian tales(myths) to explain the omnipotence of God who created the world and man therein because I also read about anthropology and realised that according to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created some 6000 years ago, but when I knew that modern humans evolved from homo heidelbergensis (500,000 years ago,) who evolved from homo erectus (800,000 years ago,) who in turn evolved from homo habilis (2,500,000 years ago.) These have been substantiated from proven fossil findings, I began to seriously question the authenticity of the Biblical facts. I then pacified my doubts, like many others must have, and rationalised that the Biblical story of creation must have been just an allegorical tale to explain to the peasantry their questions of the heavens and the earth and man.

The latest discovery pushes back the origins and location of the oldest Mammal to 195 million years and it location is in China.

Origin of mammals is pushed back to 195 million years

By William J. Cromie

Gazette Staff

Model of mammal

A model of a shrewlike creature that may have been the first true mammal, the most distant ancestor of the class of animals that includes present-day elephants and humans. The reconstruction was made from a 195 million-year-old fossil skull (above right). It was no bigger than a paper clip and weighed less than an ounce.

Discovery of the skull of a shrewlike animal the size of a paper clip pushes back the origin of mammals, including humans, to 195 million years ago. Found in China, the tiny skull shows evidence that the first mammals evolved from reptiles 45 million years earlier than widely believed.

It is impossible to refute such archaeological findings and it makes it very difficult to rationalise this to biblical stories in the Bible. This latest finding, pushes back the origins of the evolution to 195 million years and also proves that ape like creatures existed on the Chinese continent at that time, implying that possibly a separate species of primitive man could just as easily evolved independently in China.

Archaeology, Anthropology, Historical, and Cosmology


As God is , why did he not ensure that the Bible was written above criticism and errors? I can only come to the conclusion that The Bible was the work of man’s literary skills and because of man’s lack of scientific or medical knowledge (at that time) his narratives must therefore be inaccurate and flawed and contradictory. The Bible was Man’s attempt to glorify a God of his own making, and the words chosen had to be vague because it had to cover all possibilities. Thus all the Biblical narratives had to be general enough and told as parables or allegories to fit every possibility. At least that was how the early authors and their subsequent editors attempted to script it.

Why, if God is omnipotent and benevolent, has God not in 3324 years ever lifted His finger even once to answer the billions of prayers appealing/pleading for his intervention in the suffering and massacre of man, like the holocaust, or Horishima and Nagasaki? The only conclusion that I can come to is that with such omnipotent powers, that God is attributed to possess, He, in reality,  does not have these powers at all. And that God’s inability to appear must prove that He cannot exist and never did exist. And that, rather than, “God made man after his own image,” it is really the other way around, that “Man made God in his own image” and caricatured him to man’s own limitations or they caricatured Him after some  known character like a great and benevolent pharaoh. This practice of immortalising and deitifying mortals into god was a common practice with other religions like Hinduism, Taoism, Islam (elevatingMuhammad as prophet) and even Christianity (Catholic and Anglican sainthoods and elevating Jesus to God.)

This in turn have raised doubts of the historicity of the major characters in the Bible, and even has raised the question of the historicity of the authors of the New Testament and also the Old Testament. Hence, the modern quest for the historical Moses, and historical Jesus that has in no way been proven within Biblical records.

To Christian evangelicals who are satisfied with the allegorical stories in the Bible as historical events, there is no proof, but that is a matter of blind faith unto themselves, but they should not obstruct others or malign others who  may have other views that are contrary to their views. 2 Timothy 3:16 is the Biblical licence for others to seek the true and historic origins of the Bible. The bigoted authoritative attitudes of some Christian evangelicals is thus unchristian and unwarranted.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Word Count to this point: 1844 words

Is The Bible Inspired By God i.e., the Infallible Word of God?

“Many believers have been taught that Scripture is the ultimate measure of truth, never imagining that the bible itself might come under a higher measure of truth, under the scrutiny of reason.”Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith, page 92The Bible is the foundation of the Christianity. It is viewed by fundamentalist Christians as the crystal pure, clear, infallible word of their god. They claim that it is absolutely the most wonderful collection of books in the history of the universe, that it is as perfect as any written document could ever be. My question is this-have they ever read the thing? I have read the Bible, and it just does not measure up to this sensational billing. In fact, it falls quite short of it. To be perfectly blunt, the books of the Bible are not materially different from other books written during the same time period. The books of the Bible merely reflect the primitive ideas and questionable morals of the ancient people who wrote them.

All Christians will claim that the Bible was inspired or created by their god in some fashion. If you ask a Christian specifically why he or she believes this, your query will likely be met with one of the following responses:

“Because it says so.”

“Because it shows fulfilled prophecies.”

“Because it shows remarkable consistency for a book written over the course of one thousand years by some forty different authors.”

“Because it details the perfect teachings and the ultimate sacrifice of our dear Lord Jesus.”

“Because it is the ultimate guidebook for life.”

The “because it says so” response is surprisingly common. “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” The problem, of course, is with the first three words.

The fulfilled prophecy claim is a tired Christian refrain which just does not stand up to critical examination.

The Bible is not consistent, it is inconsistent. It is, in fact, a morass of contradictions. Even if it was somehow “consistent,” this would not make it supernatural.

There is no evidence that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible existed anywhere outside of the pages of the Bible, and the moral goodness and worth of the teachings ascribed to the biblical Jesus are dubious at best. In a moment I will explain why this is so.

The Bible is a guidebook for life? This is the most asinine claim Christians make, and that is saying a lot. It is supremely asinine because the Bible glorifies war and pillaging, condones torture, promotes infanticide, advocates child abuse, belittles and degrades women, and so on. In the Old Testament, the Christian god personally murders infants and children (Exodus 12:29, II Kings 2:23,24), it supports slavery (Exodus 21:20, Duet. 15:12-17, Duet. 20:10, Joshua 16:10) and, time and again, it orders its chosen people to massacre men, women and children (Samuel 15:3, Numbers 21:31, Isaiah 13:16, Duet. 3:3-8, Joshua 8:24-16, Hosea 13:16, etc.). I am sorry, but the Bible is not a guidebook for life.

Of course Christians will explain away the cruelties and atrocities of the Bible by arguing that non-Christians take them out of context. However, if there is some “context” in which the owning of slaves, the slaughter of infants and the butchery of innocent women and children is justified, Bible believers have yet to define what it is.Naturally Christians prefer to ignore the Old Testament’s violence and instead focus their attention on the New Testament. They will confidently point to the figure of Jesus Christ as their religion’s supreme example of love, mercy and kindness, as their shining beacon of divine moral perfection-and as absolute proof of the the Bible’s divine origin. But do the words of Jesus Christ really support this view of him, and does the morality and example of the Jesus of the Gospels truly reveal the Bible to be divinely-inspired? Let’s examine the Scriptures.In Luke 12:47, Jesus uses a metaphor involving slavery to impress upon his followers the nature of their relationship with God: “And that servant (Greek doulos = slave) who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.” In Luke 12:37, Jesus says, “Blessed are those servants (slaves) whom the master finds awake when he comes…” In Luke 16:13, Jesus informs his disciples that “No servant (slave) can serve two masters…” Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus Christ speak out against the institution of slavery, which pervaded the world during his time. Instead, Jesus incorporates this barbaric practice into his parables.

What did Jesus have to say about the family? In Luke 14:26, Jesus explains to his followers that “If any man come to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” Christian apologists claim that “hate” in this passage really means “to put into disregard” or “to love less than me.” However, the New Testament was originally written in Greek and the word that was used here was miseo. (1) Miseo does not mean “to put into disregard.” nor does it mean “to love less than me.” Miseo does, in fact, mean hate. (2) The prefixes for misanthropy and misogyny come from miseo. So the question remains: why does Jesus Christ tell his followers to hate their families and their lives? In Matthew 10:35 this actually appears to be Jesus’ mission: “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.” Jesus’ anti-family attitude even extends to his own mother. In John 2:4 he rebukes her, saying, “O woman, what have I to do with thee?”In Matthew 19:11, Jesus encourages his disciples to castrate themselves: “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Does this make any sense? Evidently it did to the third century theologian Origen, who castrated himself “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”Jesus Christ continually threatens eternal torment and suffering to those who have trouble with the idea that he is the son of a god. John 15:6 reads: “If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.” In John 3:18, Jesus informs his followers that “…he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Further on, in John 3:36, Jesus reiterates his warning: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” In Luke 12:9, Jesus again warns his disciples that “he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” In Luke 12:5, Jesus announces, “I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!” Jesus describes hell as a place where “their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched,” (Mark 9:48), where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.”(Matt. 25:30). How is anyone, anywhere, supposed to find love in someone who threatens people with eternal torture simply because of what they think?

Christians may want to rationalize away these and countless other passages which reveal the Bible’s fallibility and immorality. They may insist that the words of Jesus and God that support slavery, castration, torture, murder and hate are taken out of context. The problem, however, is that believers have taken the whole Bible out of context. The Bible is a confused jumble of tales and fables, geneologies, poems and proverbs which were written in a time of superstition, mythology, ignorance and savagery. The early Church compiled these writings, edited them and foisted them on the world as the “Word of God” to justify its own existence. In this respect, the Bible is little different than such other sacred books as the Koran or the Bhagavad-Gita.

It appears that most Christians do not actually read the Bible for themselves but instead have it spoon-fed to them by their ministers and priests. If Christians truly want to understand why others find their respect and awe for the Bible to be unfounded and undeserved, they must read it for themselves-all of it. Then they will discover that the books of the Bible are much like other ancient books, written by fallible, sometimes cruel people living in a harsh, superstitious, scientifically illiterate age. [1]

The Bible is Not the Word of God

Argument # 1: The Bible is the infallible word of God.

This is the first and most fundamental claim that Christians make when Evangelizing. It is just taken for granted that it is true, but if you analyze the weight of the evidence for this doctrine, you find that it is in actuality both weak and nearly non-existent. First of all, the first sentence of this argument, that the “Bible is the word of God” implies that the text in the Bible books are God’s words verbatim. However, we all know, including the Christians, that humans wrote those books. The only difference is that Christians believe that the humans (the identity of many of them are unknown) who wrote the Bible were guided by God the Holy Spirit, and therefore, they are God’s words verbatim and without flaw. The question then becomes, were they? Furthermore, they argue that since we would assume that God would protect his own word, that the Bible has remain unchanged.

There are two vague verses though, that Christians use to attempt to prove that the Bible is God’s word. These two verses though, pose problems and raise more questions that preachers don’t address, cause they can’t. Let’s look at them now. Here’s the first one.

2 Timothy 3:16

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

Now, here’s the other verse they use to claim divine inspiration of the Bible.

2 Peter 1: 20-21

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Again, it obviously is referring to the prophecies of Old Testament prophets and perhaps scriptures, not to the whole Bible. Therefore, the three problems above apply to this verse as well. And as mentioned, Christian theology and teaching is based primarily on the Church’s interpretation of the New Testament.

Now, here’s the kicker. There are THREE verses in the New Testament that claim that the Bible is NOT the exact word of God! Here let me show you!

1 Corinthians 7:12

“But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.”

The Apostle Paul clearly says here in the first sentence “speak I, NOT the Lord”. He is saying that these words he is about to say are from him and not God! It’s in plain language. This alone technically invalidates the fundamentalist doctrine that every word in the Bible is uttered directly by God. It alone shatters this absolute claim of theirs. There is no defense. However, there are two more similar verses like it to shatter the doctrine even further beyond what’s necessary. Later on in the same chapter, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 7:25

“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”

You see here how Paul is saying that he is using his best personal judgment, and that what he’s saying is not directly from God? He is telling you that he is writing his own opinion. Then, in Paul’s next letter to the Corinthians, he says:

2 Corinthians 11:17

“That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.”

Again, the same claim by Paul.

Christian apologists, when countered with these verses, usually respond by claiming either that 1) Paul was adding to Jesus’ commands, or 2) Paul was being inspired without himself knowing it. Now those are very bizarre explanations indeed, which don’t even address this issue. Either way, even if those two explanations are true, they still shatter the doctrine of Biblical infallibility. And furthermore, in regards to the second explanation, why would God “inspire” Paul to say that his words were NOT from God?!

What is odd is that while the Evangelists and Apologists emphasize this doctrine of Biblical infallibility so strongly and obsessively as if it were the central issue, the Bible itself doesn’t even do that. In fact, these Apologists only have two vague verses they use to justify this core doctrine of theirs. If this doctrine of Biblical infallibility was so central and core to Christianity as they claim, then why are there only two vague verses about it, out of over 33,000?

As mentioned before, the doctrine of Biblical infallibility was not a central tenet of Christianity until early in the 20th century when the theory of evolution began to be taught as fact in classrooms. It was then that the Christians countered with this doctrine. Not only did it protect Christian tenets from the danger of Darwinist teachings, but it served other purposes as well. You see, without the doctrine that the Bible is infallible and that every word of it is of God, it would put question marks on every verse. Anyone could then pick and choose which parts of it they wanted to be God’s word and which they didn’t, and that would greatly undermine the authority of it. So this doctrine is necessary to keep the religion intact. Otherwise, Christians themselves would not be able to feel secure and confident that every verse in the Bible could be trusted.[2]

The Bible

“We find collected in this book [The Bible] the superstitious beliefs of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine, with indistinct echoes of Indian and Persian fables, mistaken imitation of Egyptian theories and customs, historical chronicles as dry as they are unreliable and miscellaneous poems, amatory, human and Jewish-national, which is rarely distinguished by beauties of the highest order but frequently by superfluity of expression, coarseness, bad taste, and genuine Oriental sensuality.”
Max Nordau (1849-1923)

“The dogma of the infallibility of the Bible is no more self-evident than is that of the infallibility of the popes.”
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)

The Bible: What It is

The Bible is really a collection of many books. In fact, the modern Bible, not including the group of books known as the Apocrypha, actually comprises of sixty-six books. The lengths of these books vary from Isaiah, which comes close in length to a modern short novel, to the Third Epistle of John, with only 294 words.

The books in the Bible are divided into two main sections; known respectively as The Old Testament and The New Testament. Christians view the Old Testament as an account of the old covenant between God and the Hebrews. The Old Testament was also supposed to contain references and prophecies to the coming of Jesus Christ. The New Testament presents, through Jesus, a new covenant, this time between God and all mankind.

In some Bibles there exist a third section, known as the Apocrypha. These books are those which canonicity as the word of God is disputed in various churches. The Roman Catholic Church accepts some of these books as canonical and places them together with the books of the Old Testament.

The Bible is, thus, a collection of many different types of books. Not all the books carry the same message. For instance, Nehemiah, calls for the preservation of racial purity by the prohibition of inter-racial marriages, while Ruth has for its heroine a Moabite woman who married a Jew. As another example, the book of Proverbs extols living the good life which it says is God’s reward for righteous living while Ecclesiastes says life is meaningless and prosperity is accidental.

The New Testament stands in an uneasy contrast with the Old. The Old Testament says that the Jews are the chosen people of God. This God may sometimes abandon them as a punishment for their unfaithfulness but the severance was always only temporary. Yet in the New Testament we are shown that the Jews are completely severed from God and are in fact responsible for the murder of his Son.

The Inerrant Bible?

The Bible is an interesting and valuable collection of Middle Eastern myths, history and literature . To the Christians, however, the Bible is much more than that. It is God’s word to man. As God’s word to man Christian theologians had in the past viewed the Bible as an inerrant work. This is only reasonable, for the one guarantee that the Bible is God’s word must be that it cannot contain any errors whatsoever. With the development of human knowledge, especially in the sciences, this view of Biblical inerrancy is being shared by fewer and fewer theologians.

However, there is still a substantial group of theologians, the fundamentalists, who accept, or shall I say, assert, the strict inerrancy of the Bible. Note that the dogma of the inerrant Bible is not that only some parts of the Bible are true. It asserts that the Bible is completely and absolutely without any error. It is also the general observation of this author that most lay Christians, be they from fundamentalist churches or otherwise, hold what is an essentially fundamentalist view of the Bible: that it is inerrant.

Before starting our analysis, there are two ideas that must be clear in our mind. First we have to understand the logic behind our claim that that the Bible is not inerrant. Second we have to understand the difference between the concept of probability and possibility and why it is relevant for our analysis to follow.

We see that the Bible contains many mistakes and inaccuracies. The Bible

  • contains internal contradictions.
  • contains numerical contradictions.
  • contains failed prophecies.

Apart from these simple errors, the Bible also contains numerous scientific errors. These include errors in:

  • the physical sciences
  • the biological sciences
  • mathematics.

Thus far from being inerrant, the Bible is we can see, is filled with contradictions, mistakes and scientific errors common to other cultures of that era.


On Morality and Word Spinning

Some believers have argued that while it is may be so that the Bible is not completely true and is a largely a human concoction, it is still a valuable storehouse of moral teachings. This too, is patently false, upon close examination. We see that:

  • God commands atrocities, the type which rivals the worst atrocities of Hitler and Stalin.
  • The Bible is essentially misogynistic.
  • It condones slavery.
  • The teachings of Jesus where they are original, are not good moral guides. Where they are good or positive, they are not original.

It can be shown that much of the harm Christianity has visited on the world has been due mainly to these Bible passages.

That leaves us with the liberal theologians. They try to explain away the contradictions, mistakes and moral flaws of the Bible with theological word-spinning.


What can we conclude from our study of the Bible?

  • It is filled with scientific errors, contradictions and numerous other errors.
  • Many of its myths are not even original, but were derived from earlier middle eastern myths.
  • The authors are largely anonymous.
  • The canonization process is largely haphazard and accidental.
  • It does not serve as a good moral guide and in fact had been largely responsible for the atrocities committed by believers.

In short, the Bible is not a “good Book”. [3]


When encountering any evangelical Christians it is quite clear that their views on the infallibility of the Bible has been mem-ified into their psyche. So fixed in their minds are they that no one can convince them the possibility that their conclusions have been based on cleaver spin. Hence instead of having to forward the same arguments again and again I have decided to collect a few intelligent views with references to quote from. There is so much evidence to indicate that historically there is no proof that any of the Biblical characters ever existed and even stronger proof that these Biblical figures are in every probability caricatures of human personalities who actually lived, and later deified  later into Jewish folklore. The latest books on this are by Ahmed Osman in,”Christianity- An Ancient Egyptian Relilgion” and others. The Bible is a book of folklore and ancient tales with no historical support whatsoever.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: