Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical fallicies in the bible
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 91 of 106 (54602)
09-09-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by phil
09-07-2003 2:33 PM


Hi Phil,
To let you know I am working on a reply, post it soon.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by phil, posted 09-07-2003 2:33 PM phil has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 106 (54746)
09-10-2003 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by doctrbill
09-09-2003 2:14 PM


Re: YHWH and GOD
Holy Cow! (no, I'm not a Hindu) Thanks Drbill for setting me straight about the reply button. Well, accidents happen. Waiting patiently for your input to my last post. PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by doctrbill, posted 09-09-2003 2:14 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 93 of 106 (54772)
09-10-2003 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Prozacman
09-09-2003 12:23 PM


Re: YHWH and GOD
Prozacman writes:
I am aware that YHWH is given for GOD.
Other way 'round actually.
I think that everywhere we find a reference to "the LORD", we are also identifying YHWH, but there are references to "the Lord" with lower case letters, and I don't know if he is the same as "the LORD".
When given as 'Lord', the Hebrew word is adonai. There may indeed be places where it refers to YHWH. I believe the context would have to be consulted in each case.
I as well as you would like some clarification on this. I do know that when the author(s) of Genesis, Exodus, etc. use the word "God", as in, "In the beginning when God created..."(NRSV), the Hebrew word for God is "Elohim" which is a plural word form meaning "the Gods".
Yes. From a feminine noun; suggesting that it is an artifact of an earlier religion which worshipped goddesses. In fact, elohim is twice translated "goddess" in the King James Version!
However, see the notes to page 3 of Gen.1(NRSV), where the "us", and "our" of "Let us make mankind in our image", is interpreted as a heavenly court of divine beings.
I don't have a copy of the NRSV but I am not suprised at the comment.
I was taught that the words us and our refer to the trinitarian godhead, but now I think these words are a clue to how seperate gods were worshipped and how thier attributes were combined over time into the single god YHWH, although I can't prove this at the moment. I believe more research is in order, and I would appreciate any input on the matter.
My sources have proved inadequate to the task of pinning down these terms as used in the creation narratives. Both Young and Strong appear to be evasive on the subject. I can, for the moment, only assume that us and we in these instances are equivalent in origin and meaning to the same words used elsewhere in scripture. The footnote you mention, in the NRSV is, I believe, leading to the truth but leaves a lot unsaid. I consulted a Jewish interpretation which provides an additional clue to the mystery. Here is what they say,
quote:
Let us
God was speaking to all the forces of creation that He had brought into existence (cf. Targum Yonathan; Ramban). Now that all the ingredients of creation had essentially been completed, all would participate in the creation of man, the crown of creation. Others interpret 'we' in the majestic sense, and translate the verse, 'I will make man in My image' (Emunoth veDeyoth 2:9; Ibn Ezra).
The Hebrew personal pronouns, 'I' (anoki, ani); and 'us' or 'we' (anachna, anachnu, anu); all appear to be derived from the same root, but neither Young nor Strong reveal what that root may be. Perhaps they were not aware of it when they produced their otherwise marvelously helpful tomes.
What one may learn from other sources, which were just being discovered and deciphered when Young and Strong published, is most revealing, I think.
The Sumerian people (with whom Abram lived) held a creation myth in which ANU, the self-made creator-god, created lesser gods who in turn created man. These lesser gods were called "ANNUNAKI" (roughly translated Anu's Offspring of Earth) which is generally understood to mean "The Children of An" i.e. "The Children of God." It takes no stretch of the imagination to see how 'annunaki' evolved into such personal pronouns as: 'anachnu', 'anoki', and 'anu'; especially among an arrogant people of Mesopotamian orgin, who considered themselves the chosen people, i.e. "The Children of God."
BTW. In the Mesopotamian (Sumerian) myth, the Annunaki were naked and hungry but had no provisional talents, so they created man to grow crops, make clothes, and otherwise serve them. Sound familiar?
At any rate, the Sumero-Babylonian origin of the creation myth is increasingly evident.
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Prozacman, posted 09-09-2003 12:23 PM Prozacman has not replied

  
phil
Guest


Message 94 of 106 (55129)
09-12-2003 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dan Carroll
09-08-2003 10:24 AM


Sorry, I forgot to reply to your post, Dan.
Stillborn babies, etc. did not condemn themselves to Hell. I will agree that God does condemn people to Hell. What I was trying to focus on was the fact that we DO have a choice on whether or not we go to Hell. I, unlike some others, am not trying to portray God in any way that is contradictory to the Bible. In other words, my argument was not that "God is all-loving and therefore he does not condemn people to Hell."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-08-2003 10:24 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Rei, posted 09-12-2003 5:44 PM You replied
 Message 96 by Prozacman, posted 09-12-2003 6:54 PM You have not replied

     
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 95 of 106 (55132)
09-12-2003 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by phil
09-12-2003 5:21 PM


Then...
Then what determines if people go to hell? "If they've been exposed to the knowledge of God and reject it?" Well, despite that contradicting the bible (which in turn contradicts itself....)** Well, if that is your argument, *how exposed*? If a person simply hears, "God is great." once, and that's it, and don't believe? What if someone talks to them for 2 minutes? Half an hours? A week? A year? What about people who have enough of a learning difficulty that they have difficulty comprehending things, but can comprehend to some extent? Are they hellbound if they don't accept? In short, where is the line? And where in the bible to they give this sort of exception to the rule? Or are you just assuming it because God is loving? Read Deuteronomy to learn how God is described. Described as a devouring flame, an angry god. A God who whole-heartedly endoses pillage, a God who says to show no mercy and to kill everyone that is encountered (which would, btw, include women and children). I could go on for a long, long time...
**Works alone, Faith with works, Faith alone?
James 2:20-22
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
James 2:24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone
James 2:26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Eph 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.
Rom 3:28
A man is justified by faith without works.
Jam 2:17
Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead
Jam 2:24
"A man is justified by works and not by faith only
Rom 4:2
"For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory?
Acts 16:30-31
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
(I could go on for a long time...)
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by phil, posted 09-12-2003 5:21 PM phil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by phil, posted 09-12-2003 11:43 PM Rei has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 106 (55144)
09-12-2003 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by phil
09-12-2003 5:21 PM


No, we don't have a choice about heaven or hell Why not? If one's daddy who one had never met, because he left when one was a baby, came up and pointed a gun at one's head, and said, "I'm your daddy, come home with me or I'll shoot you", would anyone except Bruce Lee have a choice??
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by phil, posted 09-12-2003 5:21 PM phil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Yaro, posted 09-12-2003 7:41 PM Prozacman has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 97 of 106 (55152)
09-12-2003 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Prozacman
09-12-2003 6:54 PM


hehe... woulden't it be more like, your long lost dady told some guy in deepest darkest africa that he was gonna shoot you if you didn't reconginze him as your father. Then he shows up one day and asks you if you recognize him, when you say no, he says well, I told some people so if you ain't heard it tough luck. And then he kills you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Prozacman, posted 09-12-2003 6:54 PM Prozacman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Prozacman, posted 09-13-2003 12:19 PM Yaro has not replied

  
phil
Guest


Message 98 of 106 (55178)
09-12-2003 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rei
09-12-2003 5:44 PM


Re: Then...
I already answered all these questions earlier in this very topic. Also, I do not know what point you are trying to make by quoting all the verses describing faith by works. If you'd like to explain, I'd be happy to reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rei, posted 09-12-2003 5:44 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Yaro, posted 09-12-2003 11:53 PM You replied

     
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 99 of 106 (55179)
09-12-2003 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by phil
09-12-2003 11:43 PM


Its a valid point. Some say its only faith, some say a combination. Some say only works.
So the question naturaly arises, by what is a man saved?
Faith, works, or both?
Yet the Bible is contradictory on the issue. Wouldent you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by phil, posted 09-12-2003 11:43 PM phil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by phil, posted 09-13-2003 12:06 AM Yaro has not replied

  
phil
Guest


Message 100 of 106 (55187)
09-13-2003 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Yaro
09-12-2003 11:53 PM


Faith versus works:
Basically, as I understand it, all one needs to "be saved" is faith. However, without works, your faith is dead. A marriage is a good analogy here: If I marry some girl, but then I desert her, we are still married technically (barring the worldly practice of divorce). Our marriage, though, for all practical purposes, is dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Yaro, posted 09-12-2003 11:53 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2003 12:21 AM You replied

     
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 106 (55189)
09-13-2003 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by phil
09-13-2003 12:06 AM


Do you get into heaven with a dead faith?
And for that matter, if you love somebody with all your heart and devotion, are you married even if no priest has said so?
If the answers are "no", and "yes", respectively, then faith has nothing to do with it - it's all works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by phil, posted 09-13-2003 12:06 AM phil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Prozacman, posted 09-13-2003 11:12 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 104 by phil, posted 09-15-2003 9:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 106 (55238)
09-13-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
09-13-2003 12:21 AM


Actually, I meant this to be a reply to Phil. As I was tought back in that fundamentalist church I ran screaming from, "Saving faith"-the faith that gets us thru the Pearly Gates, is the faith in what Jesus did for us to pay for our debt of sin that we inherited from the Original-Sin of Adam and Eve. According to that doctrine(Original-Sin), Adam & Eve stained all humanity from then on in the sight of God when they listened to the serpent and not to God's warning(Genesis 2:15). God wouldn't allow rebellious humans in his presence(heaven) anymore, therefore he came to earth as a man(Jesus,the trinity,etc.) and died in our place. All we have to do is believe that and we're on our way to heaven, and if we believe that, our lives will be changed("born-again"), and our works will show it; or according to some other christians, our works will become acceptable to God. Anyway, I don't believe in Adam & Eve or "Original-Sin", or faith vs. works anymore. Why not?? Because, in my opinion, it was St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century A.D. who came up with the idea of original-sin and Adam & Eve's part in it in the first place; not St. Paul, or any other writers of the N.T. Secondly, it is my opinion that Adam&Eve are poetic/allegorical representations of humankind, and were not two real people. They were mythological constructs on the same level with Heracles and other greek heros'. Thirdly, Humans(the Genus Homo) have been around for at least a million years( but that's another topic anyway), and Genesis was compiled as late as the 2nd century B.C.(footnotes to Genesis; New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV). Therefor, as time marches on, I increasingly believe that the whole subject of faith vs. works, and how to get thru the Pearly Gates is meaningless. PM
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-13-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-13-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-13-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2003 12:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 106 (55245)
09-13-2003 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Yaro
09-12-2003 7:41 PM


Yaro, I believe you are correct I was a little under the weather yesterday, so I got my ideas mixed around

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Yaro, posted 09-12-2003 7:41 PM Yaro has not replied

  
phil
Guest


Message 104 of 106 (55637)
09-15-2003 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
09-13-2003 12:21 AM


Sorry for the delay once again.
crashfrog writes:
Do you get into heaven with a dead faith?
Yes, I personally believe that you do. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. On the other hand, the Bible says that faith without deeds is useless (James 2:17-22). It may seem to be a contradiction, but I think it means that although only faith is necessary for salvation, it is completely useless for anything else without works. In other words, when James says that faith is useless, I think he assumes that his audience (the recipients of his letter) already has faith, meaning they already have salvation.
And for that matter, if you love somebody with all your heart and devotion, are you married even if no priest has said so?
No analogy is perfect. The faith:marriage analogy breaks down here. There is no priest who has to officially announce that you have faith in Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2003 12:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2003 10:12 PM You replied

     
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 105 of 106 (55639)
09-15-2003 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by phil
09-15-2003 9:58 PM


Yes, I personally believe that you do.
So, now we're in a situation where a corrupt believer who never gave a rat's ass about his fellow man - Gomer Pyle, let's say - gets into Heaven, where the philanthropist atheist does not.
How is that fair?
Oh, well. It hardly matters to me. There's no requirement for your beliefs to make sense, I suppose.
The faith:marriage analogy breaks down here. There is no priest who has to officially announce that you have faith in Christ.
Well, yes. The point was to say that marriage is about works, not the official sanction. A dead marriage is no marriage at all. But apparently you feel that a dead faith is still a faith, though I don't see how that could be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by phil, posted 09-15-2003 9:58 PM phil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by phil, posted 09-15-2003 10:28 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024