Bible Characters Quiz #1

Technically, Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale. The Bible states he was swallowed by a large fish; whales are mammals.

It depends on what translation you use. The Biblical writers didn't know the difference between a fish and a whale yet. But I suppose fish might be a better translation

Actually, technically, all of this happened. Everything that is recorded in the Bible happened. Except Jesus' parables, and their called parables for a reason, because they were stories told to people to help them understand certain principles.

^I am not going to comment on the above comment because it would take too long. One thing though: 4004 BC?

Oh, slugcharger. You should know by know that they'll simply claim that it was written after the fact, even when their very own dating methods confirm that it was written before it. Evolution: A Reducing Device for Everything™.

slug, careful using history to support the veracity of the Bible. While it works in a couple places.... that same history proves the Bible to be utter fabrication more often than not.

It's a collection of various myths and legends from all over the Roman/Greek/Jewish/Egyptian world. It's about as historically accurate as Harry Potter, which, coincidentally borrows heavily from various myths and legends from all over the Roman/Greek/Jewish/Egyptian worlds.

David and Solomon might have been real people, and the Jewish Temple was real.

If Jesus was a real person it's not too far fetched to believe he got baptized by someone named John. There may have been a Judas and a Mary Magdalene. Hard to say.

The rest of these events and characters are almost certainly fictional in whole or in part. Even the Israelis admit now that Moses was fictional and they looked hard for evidence to prove he wasn't.

Not everything written in the Bible happened. It contradicts itself. For example, the accounts of the birth of Jesus are completely different in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew says that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, and Luke says that they lived in Nazareth and were made to go to Bethlehem to be registered in a census, and Jesus was born in the time they were there. They cannot both be true, and it is most likely that neither is.

You know how in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Peter Parker's first love is Mary Jane Watson? And in The Amazing Spider-Man it's Gwen Stacy? And in Spider-Man: Homecoming it's some girl named Liz who's the daughter of the Vulture?

In 2000 years if there are people who have started to believe that Spider-Man was a real person it's going to inspire arguments like this. The gospels are stories. Reimagined decades apart by different authors who wanted to put their own spin on the same basic story. They are not historical documents. It's a franchise that got rebooted a few times and the Bible is the DVD box set.

and the Gnostic gospels are the Christmas special that you can only get on bootleg VHS.

Technically, none of this happened because it's all fiction.

You got proof for that claim?

What does a teapot have to do with anything?

All of the Bible is true. Prophecies panned out exactly as expected, and there's historical accounts of all of this

Technically, a tomato is a fruit.

@slugcharger, I'm not sure exactly what it is you're referring to but after an event has happened you can look through anything and make some case for it having been predicted beforehand. The bible doesn't say "in 1798 the pope will be imprisoned following the French revolution and Catholicism will lose much of its power, making atheism rise". It makes generalistic and (on the face of things) meaningless predictions. In 1400 they didn't know that this would happen in 1798. Someone looked at it afterwards and made it add up. @Fiddley, the celestial teapot is a concept made in rebuttal to some arguments about God. The idea is that there is a small teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. It is too small to be picked up by any telescope we have at the moment, so you can't prove it doesn't exist. Like God, that isn't a good enough argument for its existence. @cr, prophecies in the Bible didn't actually all happen. The Messiah was prophecised to be born in Bethlehem, but Jesus wasn't

actually born in Bethlehem. Of the Gospel writers, one expressed surprise that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, one doesn't mention it at all, Matthew decided that Mary and Joseph must have lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, and only Luke fabricated the "Christmas Story", which doesn't fit with actual history and is completely implausible. There is plenty of internal contradiction in the Bible which is why it cannot all be true.

thats your opinion.

@Landis not sure if you're talking to me or @Jamesgoat but either way:
1. That depends on what you mean by opinion
2. Whatever you mean by opinion, that doesn't refute the point.

@TWM03 - That's your opinion.

Well, it's my opinion in the sense that it's what I think. It is also completely true. Did it not help you work out why the Bible might not be true? You did ask for a response. And I thought mine was relatively unopinionated.

Oh sorry - different slugs. But the fact that my response was not opinionated remains correct.

@TWM03 - I mean, but like, opinion.

@slugarmy - I mean, but like, trolling.

@TWM03 - But like, you know, um, opinion?

Technically, the virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene both discovered Jesus's tomb empty.

I'd say the fish God sent is without species. It was a one of a kind. I cannot think of a fish that can swallow a man whole, and not digest anything.

Agreed, but everyone gets the idea

The authors of the Bible thought that bats were birds and you really think they understood the difference between whales and fish?

Presumably, you're referencing Leviticus 11:13 and 19 ('And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture...the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat').The word 'birds' there is literally עוֹף, meaning 'winged creatures' in Hebrew. The concept of a bird didn't exist in Hebrew culture until well after the alleged Biblical time of this event.

Right. They were not exactly at the vanguard of phylogenetics. If they don't understand the difference between birds and bats, then why get hung up on whether some fairy tale involves a man living inside a fish or a whale. Do you think the Hebrews knew what the difference was? Do you think they knew what a mammal was? It seems pointless to me to argue about this.

I'm not hung up on the details of fairy tales, I'm responding to people who are because they are trying to argue the point. I have never once in my life seen or heard someone say "Jonah was swallowed by a fish" OR "Jonah was swallowed by a whale" and then stepped in and said "actually.. that's not true." ... and I would never. Is this the reason why you are stalking me around the site leaving juvenile attacks aimed at me? Because you believe in fairy tales that I don't?

2.40 left. not bad for an atheist :-)

Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho...

lol I was just thinking about that...

Oh yeah.

Same song played in my head as i answered that

17/18 -- not bad for a godless heathen! I missed Joseph. I almost missed Jonah because I couldn't get Geppetto out of my head!

Gepetto?

Another dude swallowed by a whale who had the misfortune of being in a fictional story other than the Bible, and is therefore not as famous or well regarded.

roleybob: yeah you're right. Also, Italy is a real place. ergo, by Christian logic, that proves Geppetto and Pinocchio were real people, too.

Just a story

was it bad the first thing that popped in my head for leading Jews to Egypt was a Technicolor dreamcoat.

FOCL! I don't think it's BAD per se, just.... lol.

that'sa good way to imagine him! LOL :)

Why? It gives you the right answer!

big fish... 100% anyway in only 1 minute

Do you really think early Jews knew the difference between fish and whales?

Sarah is the most well-known, but Abraham had a second wife, Keturah.

Thank god I'm an atheist.

I really hope the ironic nature of your comment was intentional.

Right...?

I understand the clue, but I still say baptised Jesus remains Jesus.

i had to translate a lot of names from arabic to english but many were useless because most of the questions had to do with jesus

Jonah is referred to as Jonas in the new testament! Would be nice to accept either one!

100% with 2:24 remaining! Boo-yah!

100% with 3:13!

Levi should be allowed instead of Matthew.

Too east, and I'm not even Christian.

Too west, and I'm not even Buddhist.

Too lucid from these comments, and I'm not even sober

Nice quiz.

Pedantically speaking, you ought to accept Jesus for Joshua, since they are identical in the original Hebrew. *the more you know™*

That too. It's like John vs Juan.

Why are there so many people here commenting "fish, not whale!" ... why has this meme become SO pertinent in the minds of many Christians? I can understand feeling embarrassment when asked if you believe in a book that includes a fable about a man who lived inside of a whale, and I can understand tying to look for some way to deflect or explain away that criticism.... but.... when did anyone think that it sounds better to live inside of a fish? If anything that's even less plausible.

Nope, you don't get it at all. Not even close. Not even remotely close. I'll keep commenting until you DO get it, okay? So try again.

Well, we still don't get it. Keep commenting Kal.

^ yeah that's obvious. And I have.

troll (n./v.) - a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post; to make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them

Also not even close. A person who makes truthful, honest, sincere and factual comments, like those I've made here, is not a troll. It's not my fault if some people have such fragile and delicate beliefs that they can't handle any comment they even suspect might be critical of those beliefs.

You believe a man lived inside of a fish for over three days. And if I say this is not plausible... I'm being deliberately offensive?

Let that sink in.

Some Christians believe the story actually happened and others believe it is an allegory or didactic fiction. Regardless, the lesson is the same - when we let our own fear or egos keep us from doing what we know is right, we are in a period of darkness. Through meditation and prayer we can gain insight and ascend to our higher natures or "see the light". Jonah was in the fish for three days. Three days is symbolic in the Bible - Paul was blinded for three days on the road to Damascus, Christ didn't ascend to heaven until three days after crucifixion, etc. It's not about whether or not the story is true, it's about the truth one takes from the story.

I'm only speaking to the handful of Christians responding to my comment. But yes, clearly, the Bible is not literally true. Whether you want to call it allegory, fable, myth, a tall tale, greatly embellished historical fiction, or simply fabrication- it's still not true in a literal and objective sense of the word. But that doesn't change the fact that millions if not billions of people through the years have taken it as literal truth, including at least a couple commenting above, and all of those who get into arguments about whether Jonah was living inside a fish or a whale as if it matters.

@Isa Just because something could be taken as offensive that doesn't mean it actually is offensive. Virtually anything will offend somebody. If we're not supposed to state opinions about the Bible then why did you comment?

I'm not really sure exactly why it is that people think @kal's comment is offensive, counterproductive, an example of trolling, causing "trouble" or insulting. I kind of see that if you are a Christian you can see that it is criticising your religion and might feel offended by that, but that doesn't mean it actually is offensive. There weren't any insults in the post. There was a vague hint that believing in the story is embarassing, but that is fair because you wouldn't believe it if it was written in any other book. Believing that the story is a metaphor is a different matter, but as @kal has said lots of people actually do think it is literally true. I would actually say that if it did specify whether it was a whale or a giant fish then it is fine to argue over it in the same way that if someone said that Hagrid from Harry Potter was a giant I would be justified in correcting that to "half-giant". But they didn't know the difference then and which it is depends on the translation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk I think everyone should watch this video, for its hilarity, and for its disproving of the Bible.

Just wanted to mention that Matthew was also called Levi.

I don't think the Bible specifically says that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's first children, and thus Seth may not have been the third child.

Please guys, let's not turn this into Topix evolution debate forum.

you may already know this but Isa is Arabic for "Jesus."

Please allow "Levi" for Matthew.

I think you need to rephrase the last two questions. Joseph and Moses led all of the Israelites in and out of Egypt. Not just the Jews.