How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

Which you seem to be great at! Even when it is explained, you refuse to see, so what's the point? Anyway have a great day, nice 'discussing with you'. The questions were all answered, in detail I might add, if there is a refusal to see here, it isn't on my part.

---

Angel

1. Jesus is uniquely the born son of God. He can be equally worshipped as the father. The demons themselves fall down before him and fear him when they encounter him. He has all the attributes of the father in human flesh via the Holy Spirit. Many of the NT epistles put it this way; 'God our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. He is master/lord of Christians, whereas God is our heavenly father. The conglomerate of Christianity is depicted in the NT as the 'bride' of the lord, Christ Jesus.2. To clarify, all three have the same spiritual substance, that is of one spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the father, Jehovah and the son, Jesus. The spirit does the bidding of the father and the son. The spirit initiates nothing of itself/himself.Don't try to figure God or the trinity out to the nth. You're notagona be able to, nor am I. We go by what is written and do our best to put it all together and come up with some idea of how it works. I guess it's ok for God to know a whole lot more than we do and for us to have a limited knowledge of him as human creatures. He's revealed to us all we need to know, you can be sure of that.

Dear Platboy;

quote:

---

it is "easy" to prove ANYTHING if you use scriptures to fit your theological beliefs.

---

"YOU are mistaken, because YOU know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God;" Matthew 22:29 Do you really believe what you wrote? If you do, how could you tell what was true and what was not? All doctrines MUST be firmly supported by scriptures or they are false, and any doctrine, like the Trinity for example, that is in conflict with scripture is obviously false. Using the scriptures to determine and prove things is very basis of Christianity. "for with intensity he thoroughly proved the Jews to be wrong publicly, while he demonstrated by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ." Acts 18:28 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17 If you fail to comprehend the power of God's Word for setting things straight, you have clearly strayed far from the path.

quote:

---

1) If scripture teaches us that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever(Hebrews 13:8) then how can it be said that Jesus was an angel who became a man and then an angel again?

---

Hebrews 13:8 is referring to Jesus' personality, his righteous qualities, which will never change. It is not referring to his spiritual body. You have no point here since we both believe Jesus came to earth as a man which would have required a physical change whether he was God or an angel.

quote:

---

2)What does it mean in Danial 10:13 where Michael is but one of the chief princes? Sounds like one of a group rather than a pre eminant one to me. Jewish tradition has indicated seven arch angels.

---

Jewish tradition certainly isn't inspired, Jesus stated, "Letting go the commandment of God, YOU hold fast the tradition of men." Mark 7:8 and Paul warned, "Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men," Colossians 2:8. If you read Ezekiel 17:13 "and the foremost men of the land he took away," we find the same term used, and if you look in the preceding verse you will see that it included the King, who was certainly one of the foremost men of the land. Daniel 10:13 stating that Michael is one of the foremost princes doesn't preclude him from being the only archangel. In fact Young's Bible translates Daniel 10:13 like this "Michael, first of the chief heads," because the Hebrew term for "one of the foremost" can be translated as "first."Further proof that Michael is Jesus is found at Daniel 12:1-2 "And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book. And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence." Now compare that with what Jesus said. Matthew 24:3-21 "Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?" And in answer Jesus said to them: . . . as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, . . . for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now, no, nor will occur again." Both Daniel and Matthew are prophecies referring to the end time, when Jesus Christ at the great tribulation takes action to save those who follow him, and afterwards there is a large scale resurrection of the dead. The scriptural evidence that Jesus is Michael the archangel is overwhelming. Which makes it all the more interesting since it is a belief that is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, evidence that there is only one true religion in the biblical sense after all.

quote:

---

3) Since Michael the Arch Angel in Jude 9 says that He himself cannot rebuke Satan but only Jehovah can, why does Jesus rebuke Satan of His own authority?(Matthew 4:10,16:23,Mark 8:33)Since Michael could not rebuke the devil in his own authority and Jesus could and did, Michael and Jesus cannot be the same person.

---

Both Matthew 16:23 & Mark 8:33 are directed at Peter who is referred to as 'satan' for his misguided statement. At Matthew 4:10 Jesus said "Go away, Satan! For it is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" which is a rebuke in the common usage, but in the Bible the word rebuke is used in specific sense. Look at how Psalm 80:16 uses the term. "It is burned with fire, cut off. From the rebuke of your face they perish." The rebuke is lethal, it is not a mere verbal slap in the face. At Isaiah 51:20 Jehovah's rebuke is again lethal. "Your own sons have swooned away. They have lain down at the head of all the streets like the wild sheep in the net, as those who are full of the rage of Jehovah, the rebuke of your God." The reason Michael said "May Jehovah Rebuke you." is it wasn't yet Jehovah's due time for Satan to be executed, Michael/Jesus was showing respect for Jehovah's authority. He was basically telling Satan that at Jehovah's set time, Satan was to be killed. Jehovah "rebukes" Satan by having Jesus Christ execute him.

quote:

---

Did YOU really find this way or was it pointed out to you by other teachers?

---

Found it myself, as far as I know, no one else has made this one point.

quote:

---

We know that the early church was far from perfect. Lets now turn our search towards the Watchtower Society itself. You are doubtlessly aware that this organization has made many prophecies in the past which have since been revised and in some cases dismissed entirely. . . . why should we trust the information from this ever evolving and ever changing organization? Or will you honestly tell us that you are operating as a lone scholar who just happens to agree with the premise that Jesus was a created angel,agreeing with JW theology?

---

You said yourself, if the early church as far from perfection, so why do you expect perfection now? Of course they have made mistakes, and they will continue making mistakes right on up to Armageddon. In stead of looking at the things they got wrong, maybe you should look at the things they got right. It is far better to admit your errors and make corrections then to claim infallibility or something. The charge of false prophet doesn't apply, since they have only tried to interpret scripture rather than if they made up their own prophecies. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but deliberately making a prophecy and saying what you are making up is new information straight from God to you, that is a false prophet. For example of such you need only to look as far the Mormon church which claims to have a living prophet or the numerous cult leaders who claim divine inspiration for their writings.No I am not a Bible scholar, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, because of all the Bible study we do, people make that mistake all the time.Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

good question.here's my position: it's not good to fight with people who are obviously idiots, because that's just bringing me down to their level. i have more important things to do with my time. here's my biblical proof that this philosophy is right:

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

---

sounds good. counter point: but if we never answer and correct the people who are obviously idiots and not worth our time, how will they ever learn? therefor, we should correct them, and teach them. biblical proof:

quote:

---

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

---

so, which one is right?how about this one. women should be allowed to hold places of authority. Judges chapter 4. or rather, women should not hold places of authority:

quote:

---

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

---

which one there?the bible CAN support very many different beliefs legitimately. i didn't even have to twist any words there. but if we wanna talk perversions, did you know that the real name of "aryan nation" is "the church of jesus christ, christian?" they firmly believe in the bible, and use it as justification to kill black people and jews. does that make any sense to you? do you not see the political motivation in that? they're not actually saying "judaism is wrong" but that's what they want you to read. this post was personally inspired by god. begpardon? ahem, one step back.

quote:

---

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

---

see what we mean by scripture can be used to defend any view point? the verse you posted is now defending mine instead of yours. they are all speaking of abandoning god's word for dogma. such as you are doing. i'm not entirely sure this michael is even an angel. i'll look more. i'll bite. if michael = jesus, then why two names? why does revelation also stick michael in, but in a back-seat role, instead of just refering to him as jesus all along, or specifically stating that he is jesus?and what about these michaels?

quote:

---

Num 13:13 Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael.

​

1Ch 5:13 And their brethren of the house of their fathers [were], Michael, and Meshullam, and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jachan, and Zia, and Heber, seven.

​

1Ch 5:14 These [are] the children of Abihail the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael, the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz;

​

1Ch 6:40 The son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchiah,

​

1Ch 7:3 And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men.

​

1Ch 8:16 And Michael, and Ispah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah;

​

1Ch 12:20 As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zilthai, captains of the thousands that [were] of Manasseh.

​

1Ch 27:18 Of Judah, Elihu, [one] of the brethren of David: of Issachar, Omri the son of Michael:

​

2Ch 21:2 And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these [were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.

​

Ezr 8:8 And of the sons of Shephatiah; Zebadiah the son of Michael, and with him fourscore males.

---

are they all jesus/an archangel? i think jesus had probably read daniel. i can say that with a reasonably degree of certainty. was he putting himself in place of michael, or daniel? remember now that "son of man" is a term that implies prophet, not angel. angels are not sons of men (ben'adam) they are sons of god (ben'eloyhim). i'm considerably underwhelmed here. it's clear jesus is playing to daniel's apocalypse, as is revelation, but where does jesus say he's michael? or where does it say that michael is jesus?daniel says "one like the son of man coming on the cloud." he could he mean himself, or one like him: a prophet. jesus references the passage and claims to be that prophet. the only indication that he's michael is if you can show that daniel indicates the prophet to be michael. to me it seems to indicate that michael is a gaurdian of the nation UNDER that son of man. satan is just a word that meants opponent. it's certainly not talking about the specific entity ha-satan. i've seen similar points made. like the one about michael being the ancient of days being adam, meaning we're descended from angels. personally, i think that makes even less sense.

quote:

---

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

---

quite. i'd put the apostle paul in there.and come to think of myself, earlier this post. but it was only to demonstrate a point that just because i SAW god says such-and-such doesn't mean it's the word of god. why must all prophets be dead? i mean, i agree that joseph smith made up stuff wholesale, but what's wrong with the idea of having a modern prophet? no offense, but i can clearly tell the difference. my professor at school is a "bible scholar" and it shows. he knows the context, history, traditional interpretations and where they came from, translation issues, greater meaning, role in society, etc, of just about everything. it takes it at face value, without dogmatic beliefs, even as a believer himself. the sorts of things he says makes sense, without stringing together one reference to another to another.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-15-2004 10:51 PM

we can take this one to the side if you want, but something i've always wanted to know: supposing you ARE the one true religion. shouldn't the name matter?god's name in ancient hebrew is YHWH, yod-hay-vod-hay. at a certain point in judaism, it became unacceptable to speak the name of the lord, and so the word "lord" or adonai was used in place of it. when it came time to update the text of the torah with things like vowels, the original pronounciation for YHWH had already been lost. and so, to remind the reader to say "adonai" (lord) instead of some garbled version of however YHWH was said, the vowel pointings for adonai were used. (for this reason, most modern translation render YHWH as LORD)now, english translators came across this name, and just assumed that it was meant to be read like anything else, not knowing the traditional restriction of reading the name of the god aloud. they also tended to render the hebrew letter Yod as a J instead of a Y, and Vod as a V instead of a W (still pretty common).so they wrote out god's name like this: JaHoVaH, or Jehovah.but this is not the name of the lord at all, it's an english bastardization of the name. instead, the y is being used like a traditional prefix (as in yisrael) and the phrasing of joke god pulls on moses in exodus (the pun on to be) seems to indicate the rest of the vowels. it's very likely that god's name was pronounced "yahweh."so why, in god's name, does your group use a name known to be a scribal mistake?added by edit: i also want to add that i don't mean to knock your system of belief, it just doesn't make much sense to me. although i do agree with your religion on the less-than-god nature of christ. i'm not sure the nature or archangel(s) but i've always considered jesus to be member of a group called the sons of god (ben'eloyhim), whatever they may be. although i am also currently questioning this belief.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-15-2004 11:09 PM

LOL!! Angel, I've explicitly pointed out that the translation of the Bible you are using in defense of your theory does not match the original, in other words it's WRONG!You answer was that that I am refusing to see??!!If you are honest and truly seeking knowledge, I would have thought you have looked up the Greek transcript yourself, by now!You also look at a present-tense sentence and 'see' foretelling. You've done the exact same thing with the Isaiah verses in the 'Whole Jesus Thing' thread. When Purpledawn asked you here where do the verses foretell sacrifice, your reply was:

quote:

---

If you honestly can't see where it fortells of it, then that is fine with me. I see it, and so do millions of others. I guess when/if the time is right, you will be able to see it too.

---

Can you see a pattern here Angel? When people present you with scripture that contradicts your worldview, you shove your fingers in your ears and scream "well I can see it and so can my friends, so there!!..."Very childish, don't you agree?It's also particular ironic, because back in Message 59 you said: (emphasis is mine)...mmmm.....a word springs to mind here, beginning with H (and no, it's not Hypostatic Union!)maybe you forgot to add : "Unless the Bible disagrees with me!" Anyways.... best of luck with the rest of the Forum. You'll need it!This message has been edited by Legend, 11-16-2004 07:34 AM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Legend,What is funny to me is that I see your words as hypocritical, and when pointed out to you, you dismiss the points. Which translation are you referring to? I am fully aware that there are errors in the Bible, so you have no argument there. Ahhh, but as with you, I had already answered, and in an attempt to dodge my point, the same question was asked over and over, it's funny though that most other people could see my reason and accept it as an answer. I could say the same about both her and you, but I try to stay on the topic as much as I can. And yes I agree that avoidance of questions, *ahem*, is very childish.

---

Angel

Hi Angel,I must say, I agree with you on your stance against the Trinity. I am not a Trinitarian either. I believe in One God the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit whom God sends.If there has something that has already been discussed, please forgive me as I wish to add a few comments but have not had the time to thoroughly review this thread.There are numerous verses throughout scripture that completely contradict the doctrine of the trinity. Trinitarians believe that there are three Gods--which are three, co-equal, co-eternal Gods, each in his own right. The Bible does teach that there are three persons, but Trinitarians take these verses to mean that they each must be a "God" in his own right, and none came before the other. Trinitarians believe that the Father/Son relationship was a "role play"--where it was decided in heaven who should play the role as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians also believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 100% equal with one another, and together are "one". However, Trinitarians also fail to realize that the Father GAVE the Son THIS EQUALITY."For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;"--John 5:26This verse makes it very plain and simple that the Son was not always equal with the Father, as only the Father was able to give the Son to have life in himself.Now it is not for us to speculate on all the whys and wherefores as to how it is possible for Christ to be begotten. Nevertheless, the scriptures clearly reveal that Christ was begotten of the Father. Now let us look at another declaration. The translators of the old bibles from Hebrew to English recognized that Proverbs 8:22-30 was a reference to Christ. In fact, in some of these Bibles they put a heading referring to Christ above the declaration of Proverbs 8.Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father--one in nature, in character, in purpose--the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6. His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2Let us now take a look what Proverbs 8:22-30 says:8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.8:24 When there were no depths, I was BROUGH FORTH; when there were no fountains abounding with water.8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;So here we know absolutely that this is referring to Christ concerning himself. Now what is He telling us? He is taking us back to a dateless past, before the earth was created, in the beginning of God's way, and He is making a startling announcement that He was born of the Father. What does "brought forth" mean? Well even the NIV tells us that this means "given birth". But if we go to the original word in the Hebrew, it always is a reference having to do with birth.We need to be very specific here for we cannot afford to make any mistake.In Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, the word "brought forth" is identified by the number 2342. This same Hebrew word can be found elsewhere in the scriptures and translated by different English words. For instance, Job 39:1 "cans't thou mark when the hinds do calve?" So the word "calve" is the same word in Hebrew referring to Christ being brought forth.Psalm 51:5 "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me". The word shapen again is the same word for "brought forth". The same goes for Isaiah 51:2 "Look unto Abraham your father, and unto sarah that BARE you." The same goes for Isaiah 54:1 "break forth into singing, and cry aloud, though that dist not TRAVAIL with child."We can easily determine from these words in scripture that the word "brought forth" as used in Proverbs 8:24,25 mean exactly one thing, and one thing only. It means "born". So are we going to trust what Christ is telling us in the Old Testament concerning Himself, that He was "born"?It seems that any intelligent person wanting to take the word of God as it reads should be able to see that Christ is saying that He was born of the Father in some dateless past, not comprehensible to finite human beings. In fact, if there were no scriptures referring to Christ being born, then we could conclude that His sonship is just a "role play".Christ brought men and women power to overcome. He came to this world in human form, to live a man amongst men. He assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried. In His humanity He was a partaker of the divine nature. Now we must remember that in His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. Said the angel to Mary, "The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense. Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race.Based on this understanding, you may see that Christ was the son of God in an old sense BEFORE His incarnation.This is all I have to share for now regarding the Father/Son relationship. Perhaps I'll share more what I believe regarding the Holy Spirit. I pray that no one here is tempted to think that in order for Christ to be begotten of the Father there has to be a woman involved. Not only is that sheer nonesense to think like that--it is a downright lack of faith in God. All agree that God can do anything, correct? If one is to assume that God needs a woman for Christ to come from the Father, then that is limiting God in what He is able to do.Remember, we are feeble human beings--unable to comprehend the things of God. We are raised in an environment to think that there must be a male and a female to initiate existence. However, to think this way alone is to forget that God was the one who CREATED procreation! If He can "create procreation", does God need a woman for such a thing to happen?This is one outlandish argument numerous Trinitarians will use against you if you tell them that you believe that Christ came forth from the Father from eternity, so I thought I would bury that argument at once should its ugly head attempt to re-manifest itself. This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 11-16-2004 01:36 PM

---

~Lysimachus

wmscott,I just about fell over after reading your message, but then virtually fainted when I saw where you are from. I am from Wisconsin as well, although I live up in the Rhinelander/Eagle River area. My grandparents are from Sussex Wisconsin, and we go there quite often. In fact, I was just there about a month ago. You have great insight regarding the true understanding of the Godhead message. It's good to see someone else that can see straight through the false and missleading doctrines of the Trinity which originated from Rome. Let us also not forget, the Trinity is Rome's CENTRAL doctrine--the central doctrine of a demonination who is the very enemy of God's true faithful people.

Dear Arachnophilia;

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
so, which one is right?

---

I had second thoughts about replying to your post in light of the fact that it asks foolish questions that you should already know the answers to. Both verses are right of course, after all, they are sequential. In the first we are warned not to reply to a fool in like manner to his foolishness or we end up looking foolish as well. The second verse is stating that if we point out the flaws in his folly, he may realize his error and see that he is not wise in his argument.

quote:

---

women should be allowed to hold places of authority. Judges chapter 4. or rather, women should not hold places of authority:
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
which one there?

---

At Judges 4:4 it states "Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that particular time." Deborah did judging, but she was not a judge. The Judges in Israel acted as deliverers, (Judges 2:16) " Jehovah would raise up judges, and they would save them" Deborah didn't have this role, in fact she called Barak to be the Judge or savior. Judges 4:6 "she proceeded to send and call Barak." So Deborah wasn't a judge, all though as a prophetess she gave Jehovah's judgement on questions. There are a number of woman prophetess mentioned in the Bible. So there is no indication that Deborah held a position of authority over men.

quote:

---

the bible CAN support very many different beliefs legitimately. i didn't even have to twist any words there.

---

"Paul . . . speaking about these things . . . however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter warned about what you are saying, it isn't true. What does happen is some people take a quick look, see what they think supports something or conflicts something and they don't look any farther. If they really looked, they would find out there isn't a conflict and the Bible only supports the biblical truth. As I showed in your above examples, the 'conflicts' have simple solutions, and by using the Bible we can definitively prove or disprove doctrines such as the Trinity.
For more information on Michael/Jesus, see my earlier posts.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia;

quote:

---

so why, in god's name, does your group use a name known to be a scribal mistake?

---

We are off topic so I will provide a link to the information you request.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/article_02.htm God's NameIts Meaning and PronunciationNotice the search feature on the page, you can put in key words to find answers to any other off topic questions you may have.Sincerely Yours: Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Lysimachus;It seems we agree on many things, including what is a sensible area to live, if only it wasn't so cold. I wonder if I know your grandparents, where in Sussex do they live? My e-mail is in my profile.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Hi wmscott. My grandparents live on Mary Hill road. In fact, their house is on the very top of the hill. Their names are Roy and Pat Schroeckenthaler. My grandfather used to be the owner of Dillon Bindery in down town Milwaukee. It now belongs to his son (our uncle).My email is in my profile too. Just remember there is an underscore between "lysimachus" and "@", as the link seems to camouflage the underscore.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 11-16-2004 05:19 PM

---

~Lysimachus

yes, i actually went over much of that in my post.but the point is that the pronounciation 'jehovah' is a scribal mistake. those vowels do not belong to that name, they belong to 'adonai' and the original vowels to 'yhwh' have been lost. also, a yod tends to be pronounced 'y' no 'je' and vod as 'wa' and 'va'.if i remember by hebrew teacher well enough, if it's a play on the present tense "to be" hawah, it would be said "y'haweh" or "yahweh." if i recall correctly, the y on the beginning is a standard prefix (something like "he who" etc). if you really want better knowledge, ask amlodhi. he speaks hebrew, i do not.but the case is that we really don't know which form the root it's modifying, what tense it's in, or what the vowels actually were. but we can reasonably sure that it wasn't said "jehovah" due to the fact that the hebrews had no j sound in their language.

yes, they are sequential, aren't they? i was actually wondering if you'd notice. but you're reading into it something that isn't there. the specificity of action is absent.BOTH say "according to his folly." you are just further demonstrating the point that the bible can be used to justify almost any view point.if you want, i'll find you some other fun contradictions. the bible's full of them. i just like that one because not only are they in the same book, they're right next to each other. judges was written sequentially, but the events it records are not sequential. barak may or may not have been a judge of another tribe, but the text indicates that he's from somewhere that deborah is not (the rest of the bit you quoted and left out). this part of judges seems to indicate a JOINT action with deborah and barak.but ignoring all that. if deborah was a prophet, was she not teaching the word of the lord? and if she was judging israel, as the bible plainly states, wasn't she exercising power over men? you can quibble about what is and what is not a judge if you want, but the fact is that she was in a position of power, which paul seems to say is a very bad thing. eh, no. paul is plainly distorting the scriptures himself. read it in context, if you like. i'm not trying to quote mine. what's the message of galations? christ is a new covenant, and we do not need to hold to god's laws, like circumcision. paul says that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, even though jesus himself probably did (if he was orthodox, anyways). paul suggests marriage as a last restort, and states a general distaste for it.i'm not distorting anything here, these are things paul says. take a good hard look at how his arguments read into scripture things that aren't there, like original sin. paul is not arguing to a jewish audience, he is trying to separate the new christian church from judaism. go back and read his writings with this in mind.and also, i am neither untaught nor unsteady. i'm actually really, really interested in the bible, and have devoted some time to actually studying it, free of religious interpretations. i find a basic understanding of the functions of the text tends to explain contradictions very well. like knowing that many (most) books are composite. the torah shows signs of having five different authors. psalms is written in five books (with some overlap). it shows editting, and compiling. samuel and chronicles share very large portions of their text -- it's obvious that the person who compiled one of them was looking at the other. the books also show dates and functions. genesis is largely political (it mocks many surrounding nations through allegory, using the names of the peoples as individual characters). we also know that genesis had to have been compiled around 600 bc or so, because it speaks of domesticated camels, the tower of babel (which was rebuilt around 600 by nebuchadnezzar), and refers to ur as belonging to the chaldeans (who didn't even exist when the book is set, but occupied ur around 600).there's alot more to the bible than what it says literally, even though that's what i'm arguing here. you can be an apologist all you want -- and i agree, most contradictions ARE stupid. but i have a different apology: the people who compiled it for whatever reason didn't care about inconsistencies. they were looking for something else, not technical accuracy.so yes, it's silly to focus on this, but it DOES help us understand the mind set of the authors.here's a good one. read it literally, and it's a problem. want a contradiction in ONE single verse?

quote:

---

Pro 30:29 There be three [things] which go well, yea, four are comely in going:

---

well is it 3? or 4?and if i look, i can find TONS of these in the bible. but when you understand that it's two lines, like this:

quote:

---

There be three [things] which go well,
four are comely in going:

---

and that the second line mirrors the first with synonymous pairings, and that this is a standard form of biblical poetry (open psalms to a random page) found even in prose and prophesy, it makes a little more sense. and when you understand that numbers are ALWAYS paired with the next word-number up, it makes even more sense. it's just their equivalent of rhyme. i can show you LOTS of these if you really want.it's also evident that by the time of the early christian church, this form of poetry wasn't understood anymore.matthew reads this verse as being two different animals:

quote:

---

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

---

quote:

---

Mat 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

​

Mat 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [him] thereon.

---

care to tell me how jesus rode into jerusalem in two animals? did he do it twice? or did matthew just misunderstand the poetic form of zechariah?