Biblical Translation—Eden, 3

quote:

---

As I suspected you would not be able to provide that verse,

---

It is you who cannot prove your own, namely that thought can be a sin. You are confusing the OT with the NT - same as was done with numerous other OT writings such as Isaiah and Jeremia. Here again, you are judging the OT not on its own veracity, but by an end conclusion of the NT.

quote:

---

because Exodus 20:17, means what it says and says what it means. It is always a sin to violate Gods Laws, whether they are word, thought, deed or action. It is most certainly a sin to violate a command.

---

There is no commandment a thought is a sin, thus covet is used. I posted nuermous dictionary meanings for you - these included the plundering of another person's property. Coveting is more than a thought.

quote:

---

'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINS - IT SHALL PAY'.
That refers to a manifest action,

​

And according to the ten commandments a thought is a action.

---

Yes, everything is an action, including an inaction. Drinking water is also an action but not a sin. Many deathly actions too are not a sin - such as accidental death of another.

quote:

---

But I suppose we have beat this into the ground. I am happy enough to let those listening and watching decide for themselves with thier "thoughts", that appearently dont matter anyway, Ha Ha.

---

Yes, it does appear a beating into the ground, because you are quagmired by a belief which has to be sustained as the priority, not the text of the OT.

quote:

---

You would be better off looking for a verse whereby one was held guilty for having a private thought. You will find no such thing.

​

Exodus 20:17 and Matt 5:28 are synonymus and are both Gods Laws. Im sorry if you cannot see this simple point.

---

No, the OT is well apart from both the NT and Quran: you are forgetting these two seperated and the OT adherants do not follow the NT; would you like the NT judged via the Quran? I say the OT has won this point, and that the correct judge is the judiciary system: check and see if a thought is a crime.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Ex 20/13

​

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; {S} thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. {P}

---

The explanation is hardly in Mathew. This is better seen in the OT's Prohetic writings, which explains what covet means. You will see that the sin of coveting is not in the former clause, but in the latter, when a thought is executed:

quote:

---

Micah Chapter 2
1 Woe to them that devise iniquity and work evil upon their beds! When the morning is light, they execute it, because it is in the power of their hand. 2 And they covet fields, and seize

---

I suppose we could do this until we both pass out. So here we go again. Joseph, once again I must inform you that a concept or a thought has to have a physical correspondence otherwise the word or concept would be meaningless or jiberish. For example do you know what a "blackmortcantwith", is?, well neither do I Joseph, because it is nothing and it is Jiberish. Now a valid concept or idea has to have a real world thing to correspond to. However, the aurthor above is only giving examples of what ONE would NOT desire or covet in his or her mind.Exodus 20:13 does not say what you want it to, it is only pointing out as examples what a person should not desire earnestly and thereby sinning. This verse is simply pointing out that it is possible to do both, it is not saying that the thought is not wicked in and of itself. Notice the expression "devise iniquity", then ofcurse this, in and of itself would be sin. The word "and" is a coordinating conjuction that implies that a person can do both if they are so inclined. Exodus 20:17, removes ANY DOUBT that it is possible to violate Gods law simply by desiring a thing or person. Pointing out verses that show that a person can do both does not help you case. You would need one that says the exact opposite of that in Ex 20:17, this my friend you will never find.D Bertot

This is an unwarrented conclusion you are drawing. Plundering is an act of violence as distinquished in and by a simple thought. Simply because I can imagine plundering with vengence in my heart so to say, does not mean that I must follow through with it. Exodus 20:17 says that the iniquity devised in my mind is breaking Gods law whether I carry it out or not.You must add to the Word of God to make the statment that "coveting is more than a thought, that is not what the scriptures say. Well the above sentence makse almost no sense but Ill respond anyway. Your missing the very point at hand Joseph. Intentions, motives and purposes are what make the act of coveting sin or not sin. Since drinking water and negligent homicide do not invole premeditation they ofcourse would not involve the sin of coveting. I think you almost helped yourself see the exact point I am trying to make, our free will and decision making process decide the act of coveting or not. Your almost there. if you are not satisfied with the simple and self-explanitory presentation of Exodus 20:17, that is you choice. What other words could God have chosen to make it known that a single unhealthy and unwarrented thought is not acceptable to God. I dont see how it could be any simpler. I agree I also think the OT has one this point, it is your mishandling of a simple text that is off base and unscriptural. I am sure the Quran probably agrees and echos many of the same truths as the OT and the NT, even though it probably contradicts both as well on many points. It just so happens that in this instance the NT confirms what the OT taught long ago. The very specific reason is that the same person that gave the command to not Covet is the very same person that spoke the words in Matt 5:28, God himself in both instances.I say the judge is God, Im sure the judiciary system has its very fine points but it is not God.D bertot

You are mssing the point, and extending on useless criteria.Another persepective to make you see the light is, that a sin has to be accountable; someone such as a panel of witnesses and judges have to deem it a sin. The latter does not allow you to say, but God knows; the sin must be seen by humans and deemed a sin by humans. And this is not possible where a thought is concerned. The factors for constituting a sin are clearly given - allowing for judgement and a court to process the sin and then to administer an appropriate punishment. How can one have witnesses of one's thoughts? And where has that person been given his chance to apply his better judgement and refrain from a bad thought? The OT is a work of wisdom.But even in the case of the text, we find allignment, and your reading of the text is incorrect; indeed the only reference point seems to be that you have a verse in the NT, and thus you seek to connect these - in contradiction of, and a disregard of what the OT is saying. This is a notorious syndrome pervading the misrep reading of the OT. I gave you numerous examples where the texts says one conspires at night, and the next day goes on to act upon that thought - which brings it into the treshold of coveting. But if that person controlled his thoughts and reiterated and desisted - he has not comitted a sin. In fact he elevates himself - by himself and via his own deeds.There are no laws the world has accepted from the NT. Not a oner. All world accepted laws are contained in the OT. Check out this mysterious phenomenon.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

You have been a very busy boy. I did not ask you to describe in exact detail anything. I simply asked if IT was consciouss and and had free will to do whatever it saw fit. Is it a living personality or a simlpe force of nature. I think you are smart enough to know what I am asking here AM. Why do you need metaphorical discriptions to answer this questions. This is a very good statement. If the supernatural invalidates it so to speak, then could any of the rest of it be understood as a true, valid or even acceptable historical event. This is one of the first statements you have made that I agree with mostly. Its either all or nothing right?I will leave off from here now, get up early and start again.D Bertot

quote:

---

Plundering is an act of violence as distinquished in and by a simple thought. Simply because I can imagine plundering with vengence in my heart so to say, does not mean that I must follow through with it.

---

Correct. That is why a thought is not a sin; it becomes coveting only when there is a fastidious goal to plunder, with planning and the setting of a method how it will be carried out. Here, a burglar planning to rob a bank, with all means at hand and those plans seen upon him, can he be convicted. He cannot be convicted for only having a thought of robbing that bank.So the OT does not become judged by the NT here. You will find it is the other way around. The OT rules where laws are concerned.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Joesph writes Who were the panel of Judges that designed and agreed upon the 10 commandments as laws. Who were the panel of Human judges that agrreed and radified those things that God deems as sins in the scriptures. Did a group of human judges decide that to lay down with an animal is an abomination. Do we need mans approval to know outside of Gods law that this is a sin. Your thinking is about as backwards as any I have ever seen, really Joseph. Again Joseph, one can do both. Exodus 20:17 makes it clear that to "conspier", with ill intentions is wrong.D Bertot

Bertot writesOfcourse you missapplied what I said here. To imagine plundering with vengence or ill will is a sin, even if i do not follow through according to the OT, Ex 20:17.Yes the burglar can be convicted by God, simply by the thought and the intentions behind it. Man does not judge things like man, he has different standards.Joseph if I blasfeme God in my thoughts and take his name in vailn in my thoughts, is this acceptable, would it not be a sin. Yes because they were put there in an intrinsic manner before they were in any written form.D Bertot

quote:

---

Who were the panel of Judges that designed and agreed upon the 10 commandments as laws. Who were the panel of Human judges that agrreed and radified those things that God deems as sins in the scriptures. Did a group of human judges decide that to lay down with an animal is an abomination. Do we need mans approval to know outside of Gods law that this is a sin. Your thinking is about as backwards as any I have ever seen, really Joseph.

---

You have descended into incoherence here. The question who gives the law is not involved in the question of what the law says.

quote:

---

Again Joseph, one can do both. Exodus 20:17 makes it clear that to "conspier", with ill intentions is wrong.

---

The ill intent is closer to covet than your thought provision being a sin. A thought is not a sin nor a crime. The NT tried to max itself but fell into an error here. Don't mess with OT laws is the message.

quote:

---

Ofcourse you missapplied what I said here. To imagine plundering with vengence or ill will is a sin,

---

No - its not a sin. When it is actualised, or with definitive plans and an agenda to do so, and it is verifiable - it becomes a sin/crime. One can have bad thoughts and not be commiting a sin.

quote:

---

Joseph if I blasfeme God in my thoughts and take his name in vailn in my thoughts, is this acceptable, would it not be a sin.

---

That would not incur a sin - because no one can prosecute. And it is quite desperate how you descend to such an example. I hope you are enjoying the decending ride.

quote:

---

Yes because they were put there in an intrinsic manner before they were in any written form.

---

Intrinsically and non-intrinsically - there are no world accepted laws in the NT - not a oner. Both the premise of thoughts being a sin, and turning the other cheek are failed premises. The former was wrong because it violates one's right to think and refrain and thereby elevating his status; the latter is wrong because if one sees an innocent person being wronged and turns away - he commits a sin. There is none who have elavated themselves but via first decending, and there is no adult who has never sinned. The rule is:'WHERE A REPENTENT SINNER STANDS - THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT'.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Bertot writes And you my friend have descended into insanity. This is as backwards thinking as I could ever hope or not hope to see. If it is not a matter of WHO gave the law, then who cares what the law says? Joseph a "ill intent" is a thought my backward friend. You have have the nerve to accuse me of messing with the laws. Now that is rich.First you say that people must decide that it is a sin for it to be a sin, then you say it is not a matter of who gave the law but what the law says, and Im inchoherent? It is certainly wrong to blaspheme God or to take his name in vain, whether it is in my thoughts or out loud. How in the worldcould there be any difference, it me, myself and I doing it, regardless of the method.D Bertot

Bertot writes [qs]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ofcourse you missapplied what I said here. To imagine plundering with vengence or ill will is a sin,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Joseph writes No - its not a sin. When it is actualised, or with definitive plans and an agenda to do so, and it is verifiable - it becomes a sin/crime. One can have bad thoughts and not be commiting a sin.In this manner you are setting aside God, Gods Law (Exodus 20:170 and God as the lawgiver. it is simply the height of that which would be describe as ludicrous to believe that one could blaspheme God in thier thoughts, take his name in vein and curse and swear God and it not be wrong because one has not verbalized it or thrown in a few physical gestures. Your manner of approaching Gods Word is to say the least silly.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bertot writes Is God "no one"? Do not the scriptures make it clear that he knows our very thoughts? This is exacally why he made this Law in Exodus 20:17, for people just like yourself that believe mistakenly that he cannot judge our thoughts and that believe he is not a Judge in these instances. God my friend IS the "no one" you overlook. My ride is one of ascention not decesntion, that elevates God and his law. You my frienddisregard, set aside and ignore the very simple principles in his law. You make yourself the judge and jury in these instances. And if anyone thinks I am making a character judgement unwarrently, I would invite them to read you COMMENTS. Your comments boarder on blasphemy.Bertot writes Again I say if it is NOT wrong to curse God or blaspheme him in your thoughts then you have turned free will and the law of God into a joke. Exodus 20:17 stands against your philosophy like a brick wall. No matter your twisting or bending of it will change its simple import. Also, there are many laws that were a part of human experience that were in place long before the Law was penned. Because again I say, they were put there by God in men at creation. That ofcourse is the theme of this thread.Ofcourse you missaplied what Jesus meant. His import was if a person was insulting you or challenging you, that you should let it go. He was not saying if you saw someone getting the tar beat out of them you should not intervine. As a matter of fact. His law here makes perfect sense and is in conjuction with the OT. Does the OT not say that, "a soft answer TURNETH away wrath".One of these times Joseph I think you might get something right.D BertotI have simply got to get to Autmnmans stuff. If you respond, I will try and get to it as soon as I canD Bertot

quote:

---

Is God "no one"? Do not the scriptures make it clear that he knows our very thoughts? This is exacally why he made this Law in Exodus 20:17, for people just like yourself that believe mistakenly that he cannot judge our thoughts and that believe he is not a Judge in these instances.

---

There is no need to attach your extensions onto my post. No one said or inferred to any lacking in God. The issue concerned what the law says and means. That our thoughts are known by God is also not the issue. God knows about murders, robbers and all there is to know - but we don't wait for a lightning bolt for judgement, because God told us to establish courts and judges - and judge. This is the reaon God gave us laws. The issue is, having a bad thought per se is not a sin or a crime. Covet clearly means more than that - without contradicting any other of the 613 laws.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

bertot: You wrote: I did indeed misunderstand your question. I think I got it right this time. The Supreme Natural God, according to my conception, is far more than merely a “force of nature.” This Deity is the Spirit that created nature”from the origin of all the Cosmos to the present day. This Spirit, however, does not have a human-like personality because it is not human. This Spirit does have “a living personality” but exactly what that “living personality” is happens to be beyond my personal comprehension, and beyond my ability to express in words. I feel it, but cannot define it. It is inside of me and outside of me, but I cannot get my mortal mind to touch it”so to speak. Does this Spirit of Life have free will? I would say, yes! But the term “will” as applied to human beings does not apply to the Spirit of Life. The term “conscious” as applied to human beings does not apply to the Spirit of Life either, but I suppose it can be used in a loose sense of its definition.

quote:

---

AM wrote: When God alters creation through miracles in Reality”today”then belief will be suspended and Reality will reign true. Simply because some supernatural event is described in a book, that does not make what is written in that book a true historical event. In fact, due to the supernatural nature of the literary described event, it is most likely that the literary described supernatural event is not of a true historical nature.

---

The “supernatural event” described in a book does not invalidate the entire book, only that particular “supernatural event” is perceived as questionable. That is what I said above. Here it is again:

quote:

---

it is most likely that the literary described supernatural event is not of a true historical nature.

---

Whatever the literary text describes as true and valid and can be corroborated by other means can and should be accepted as being a historical event. That is how human beings arrive at historically based conclusions. But just because a literary text, or portion of a literary text happens to turn out to be of a “legendary or mythical” nature, that does not mean that the legendary or mythical text is not valuable, it only means that it is not historical in nature. Wrong! It is never “all or nothing.” That is not what I conveyed in the above quote. Try reading it and the rest of what I wrote above again.Language and consciousness go hand in hand. Literary texts and language go hand in hand. Literary texts influence human consciousness as well as our language. And our worldview is established in our consciousness and is expressed by our language. And on and on And on ...All the best,
Ger