Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Poor Satan, so misunderstood.
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 76 of 301 (439860)
12-10-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jaywill
12-10-2007 3:42 PM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
jaywill writes:
The RULER of the authority of the air is an evil spirit....
Again, your own reference doesn't say that:
quote:
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
It's talking about "lusts of the flesh" - i.e. making bad decisions based on selfishness. No foreign entity is required for that.
... even the Solomon in the Old Testament speaking by the Spirit of God tells us virtually the same thing as what Jeremiah wrote about the heart of man:
quote:
"Surely there is not a righteous man on the earth who does good and does not sin." (Eccl. 7:13)
Well, my Bible quotes Ecclesiastes 7:13 thusly:
quote:
Ecc 7:13 Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?
Besides not matching your "quote", it seems to disagree with you completely, saying that it's God who makes things crooked.
Then Solomon tell us that man was not created this way, but somehow has sought out deceitful ways:
quote:
"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" (Ecc. 7:29)
And yet again, your own reference doesn't blame "Satan" for the schemes that we cook up.
Just because Ringo doesn't WANT to listen to the New Testament prophets that it is the evil spirit operating in man, doesn't make it not relevant or not true.
Ringo loves to listen to the New Testament. It's the Jaywill Testament, where everything is blamed on God's evil twin, that Ringo doesn't like.
Edited by Ringo, : Spilling.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 3:42 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 6:07 PM ringo has replied
 Message 82 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 7:41 PM ringo has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 77 of 301 (439869)
12-10-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
12-10-2007 5:31 PM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
Correction:
Ecclesiastes 7:20
"Surely there is not a righteous man on the earth who does good and does not sin." (Recovery Version]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 5:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 6:21 PM jaywill has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 301 (439872)
12-10-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jaywill
12-10-2007 6:07 PM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
jaywill writes:
Ecclesiastes 7:20
"Surely there is not a righteous man on the earth who does good and does not sin."
Still doesn't support your position. Nobody's disputing that all men are sinful/imperfect. The question is: Should we blame some evil spook or should we take responsibility for our own actions?

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 6:07 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 6:59 PM ringo has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 79 of 301 (439884)
12-10-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
12-10-2007 6:21 PM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
Should we blame some evil spook or should we take responsibility for our own actions?
No we shouldn't blame some evil spook. We should believe what the word of God has to teach us. And we should believe the Bible WITHOUT preference or prejudice and not caring about the mocking of people.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 6:21 PM ringo has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 80 of 301 (439885)
12-10-2007 7:04 PM


Topic
Testing
Edited by jaywill, : Changed my mind.

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 81 of 301 (439894)
12-10-2007 7:33 PM


The Satan Concealment Crew
To the Satan Concealment Crew:
Question for the zealots on this forum who are eager always to say "THERE'S NOOOOOO Satan in the Old Testament !!"
Okay, how did the serpent have this inside story about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Man was created to have dominion over all the creatures of the earth. How can man have dominion over the serpent if the serpent is smarter about what is going on than man?
Where did the serpent get this information that Adam would become like God knowing good and evil? It sounds like the serpent had some previous experience with these things.
What kind of snake is this? He has the "inside story" on such divine and eternal matters. Where did he get this knowledge?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2007 8:32 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 95 by IamJoseph, posted 12-16-2007 2:50 AM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 82 of 301 (439896)
12-10-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
12-10-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Leave Me responsible for something !!
Ringo loves to listen to the New Testament. It's the Jaywill Testament, where everything is blamed on God's evil twin, that Ringo doesn't like.
EVERYTHING ... is NOT blamed on God's evil enemy. Obviously, EVERYTHING is not blamed on the Devil.
But how would you know? You open the Bible and don't see anything in its pages except your own beef against disciples of Jesus.
What is blamed on the Devil is what is blamed on the Devil. What is our responsibility is what is our responsibility. Its right there in the book.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 5:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 12-10-2007 7:53 PM jaywill has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 83 of 301 (439898)
12-10-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jaywill
12-10-2007 7:41 PM


Re: Leave Me responsible for something !!
jaywill writes:
What is blamed on the Devil is what is blamed on the Devil.
Obviously untrue. As I have demonstrated, you invoke "de Debbil" when no such thing is mentioned in the text at all.
Question for the zealots on this forum who are eager always to say "THERE'S NOOOOOO Satan in the Old Testament !!"
Nobody has said that, of course. What's Satan is Satan and what ain't, ain't.
Okay, how did the serpent have this inside story about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
God might have told him - or he might have just eaten from the tree (fruit-snake ). "He must have been Satan" is a thoroughly unnecessary option.
How can man have dominion over the serpent if the serpent is smarter about what is going on than man?
The serpent wasn't "smarter than man". Man is capable of learning and has learned lots of things from lots of animals.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 7:41 PM jaywill has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 84 of 301 (440000)
12-11-2007 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by jaywill
12-10-2007 9:04 AM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
quote:
Why is the law of God not mentioned in Genesis?
It is mentioned. Genesis contains 7 laws, called the Noahic laws, encumbent upon all humanity. These include Monotheism, not to murder, not to consume live animal meat, and the first commandment in Genesis, 'go forth and multiply' [go forthightly means via lawful marraige].
quote:
Why did God not spend considerable time to teach Adam how to obey the law of God?
Why was there not a contrast between the forbidden tree and the law?
God did teach Adam - bu giving him a command. The OT is very pristine and minimalist; it obviously includes an inculcation, via words or other means, while the command is sufficient. There were no explanations given to the Israelites also - but still the first utterences related to laws. However, there is no transgression before the law is given: in Adam's case the law was given him.
There need not have been a contrast - the command not to eat related to the fruit of the tree, meaning both or either of them.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2007 9:04 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 12-11-2007 9:07 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 12-15-2007 9:09 AM IamJoseph has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 85 of 301 (440015)
12-11-2007 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by IamJoseph
12-11-2007 7:21 AM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
It is mentioned. Genesis contains 7 laws, called the Noahic laws, encumbent upon all humanity. These include Monotheism, not to murder, not to consume live animal meat, and the first commandment in Genesis, 'go forth and multiply' [go forthightly means via lawful marraige].
I mean in chapter 3 of Genesis.
Why contrasted against the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was there not simply the tablets of the law of God?
With the importance you place on the law (and I also believe it is important) why was it not mentioned as Adam's fundamental instructions?
God did teach Adam - bu giving him a command. The OT is very pristine and minimalist; it obviously includes an inculcation, via words or other means, while the command is sufficient. There were no explanations given to the Israelites also - but still the first utterences related to laws. However, there is no transgression before the law is given: in Adam's case the law was given him.
Do you mean that there was no trangression with Adam?
Was he punished by expulsion from the garden because of transgression or not?
There need not have been a contrast - the command not to eat related to the fruit of the tree, meaning both or either of them.
The command not to eat DOES NOT cover the tree of life.
You better go read again carefully:
"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of EVERY tree of the garden you may eat freely, BUT of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of IT you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Adam was permitted to eat of "every tree" ... except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Why then do you try to spread the prohibition over the tree of life?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 12-11-2007 7:21 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by IamJoseph, posted 12-11-2007 9:33 AM jaywill has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 86 of 301 (440025)
12-11-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by jaywill
12-11-2007 9:07 AM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
quote:
With the importance you place on the law (and I also believe it is important) why was it not mentioned as Adam's fundamental instructions?
Actually, I agree there is good merit in saying the laws were dispensed fast, suddenly and w/o much pre-experimentation. At least, this would apply to numerous laws. What seems analogous to the adam story, is the first two commandments, which are so strictly inclined with Monotheism and NO OTHER GODS. When one considers it well, the Israelites at this time were steeped in idols and dieties, being in ancient Egypt for centuries: they had to fail this one, and they did. Same with Adam and Eve.
However, IMHO, the laws had to be given, and perhaps they are best viewed from a big picture long period view of humanity. The law is careful to include a host of saving graces, such as forebearence, kindness, mercy, forgiveness, etc.
quote:
Do you mean that there was no trangression with Adam?
Was he punished by expulsion from the garden because of transgression or not?
He was punished and he did transgress the law given him. However, the point is not only the failing here; this story shows more than that - namely that an overwhleming situation was given them [how long would anyone last if told not to eat a fruit lest it begets them everlasting life and transcendent Gd like knowledge?] - then overwhelming temptation with the serpent [the most cunning of all creatures]?
Even with murder, if its accidental or not pre-med, there is no crime. IMHO, its too simplistic to read this story relating only to a failing by Adam. It appears more a reflection for humanity and how they will act and what will confront them in this realm. It is more akin to a parent testing a child - with full knowledge of the outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 12-11-2007 9:07 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jaywill, posted 12-11-2007 9:53 AM IamJoseph has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 87 of 301 (440033)
12-11-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by IamJoseph
12-11-2007 9:33 AM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
Thankyou. But you did not yet address the prohibition.
If it did not cover the tree of life I think you should adjust your previous statement that it did.
Or else explain how the prohibition extended over the tree of life.
Thankyou.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by IamJoseph, posted 12-11-2007 9:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 88 of 301 (440916)
12-15-2007 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by IamJoseph
12-11-2007 7:21 AM


Re: A God-man verses a Good-man
God did teach Adam - bu giving him a command. The OT is very pristine and minimalist; it obviously includes an inculcation, via words or other means, while the command is sufficient. There were no explanations given to the Israelites also - but still the first utterences related to laws. However, there is no transgression before the law is given: in Adam's case the law was given him.
In the Bible there is the law in letters. But there is a higher law which is the law of life.
The peach tree yields peaches. It does not have to be commanded to do so. It has a life which has a peach producing nature. It has a peach growing law in its life. In fact every life has within it a law which is the law of that life.
God has a life. And with His life there is the law of His life. God has a way of dispensing His life into man. This is extraordinary. And we may have no exact parellel of it in the natural world. The closest thing may be the relationship of a parent to a begotten child. The life of the parent is practically dispensed into the offspring of that parent.
The tree of life signifies the dispensing of God's life into man. Then the law of life, the law of the divine life of God would have been imparted into man's very good created life to make man one with God.
Some people think that the tree of life was simply the power of an everlasting human life. However the prohibition was not one for man to never cease eating from the tree of life. God did not say:
"Here is the tree of life. As long as you eat of it you will not die."
The only thing we are told would cause man to die is his eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I submit then that from creation Adam already had an everlasting human life. What then could be the purpose of a tree of life in the midst of the garden?
The tree of life was symbol of God's divine life. It was not forced upon man. It was Adam's option to eat of it. We do not even see God command Adam to eat of the tree of lief. But it is there for his taking and it is central being in the middle of the garden.
God wanted man of his free will to eat of this tree of life in order that the good man might become a God-man, a man with the life of God Himself mingled with his created human life.
If this does not bring things into focus let me put it this way. God wanted a son of God. God wanted something more profound than an angel creature. He wanted a son, a created man, who nonetheless was of one life and nature with God Himself. He wanted a man like Jesus Christ. Put another way - Jesus Christ is what God intended by the creation of "Human Being." Jesus Christ is what God meant by Man.
God wanted a God man. He still wants a God man. Then the law of life spontaneously produces the expression of God within a man. The divine attributes of God are then expressed within the human virtues of the created man. God wants to live in man and to live out from man. And God wants man to live in the sphere and realm of God.
The law of letters, the law of God cut in tablets of stone is one matter. But the law of life is the higher law which imparts into man the spontaneous outflow of the expression of the righteousness, holiness, and glory of God.
Once man ete of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he began to die. The tree of life is more powerful than death and was able to preserve this sinful man for eternity. But God would not have that. He would not be joined to sin in any way. He cannot dwell where there is sin. So the way to the tree of life was cut off after man's fall.
And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever -
Therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he was taken.
So He drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-24)
The New Testament apostle Paul tells us that fallen man is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18)
From this expulsion from Eden's garden with the angelic guard placed to protect the tree of life, the human race has been "alienated from the life of God". Therefore man has been alienated from the law of life. Man has been estranged from the law of the life of God which he was intended to have mingled into his own good created life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 12-11-2007 7:21 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 12-15-2007 12:12 PM jaywill has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 89 of 301 (440923)
12-15-2007 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jaywill
12-15-2007 9:09 AM


jaywill writes:
The peach tree yields peaches. It does not have to be commanded to do so. It has a life which has a peach producing nature. It has a peach growing law in its life.
Similarly, man yields his fruits - and one of those fruits happens to be screwups. He doesn't have to be commanded to produce screwups. He has a life which has a screwup producing nature. He has a screwup growing law in his life.
No Satan required.
(In fact, the Satan concept is so unnecessary that you don't feel it necessary to mention him at all in this post - in a thread about Satan.)

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 12-15-2007 9:09 AM jaywill has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 90 of 301 (441001)
12-15-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by IamJoseph
12-08-2007 5:34 AM


IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
The river was parted [seperated] from Eden; it went 'out of Eden' [seperated from Eden], and became 4 heads 'after' this parting:
Gen. 2/10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads.
You're being disingenuous. "Out of Eden" means it kept on flowing. Eden was not all there was to existence. All rivers that currently flow on earth do not flow "out of earth." They are completely self-contained on the planet. Remember, Adam and Eve are cast out "east of Eden."
And "parting" does not imply a spiritual or supernatural or interdimensional leaving of one space-time continuum into another. It means exactly what it appears to mean: Split into four. You're ignoring the second part of the statement: "parted [I][B]and became four heads[/i][/b]."
quote:
East, and Easterly Wind, refers to something else in the OT, as with a strong easterly wind which split the sea of reeds: it denotes an unnatural act or event.
No, it doesn't. You're forcing your desires upon the text. Where do you find anything in the text that indicates such? Chapter and verse, please.
quote:
Also, on earth there are no talking serpents
And that doesn't tell you something? No, not that the garden of Eden is in some supernatural place (else how could the rivers that started in Eden make it to the earth where we can see the Euphrates still today?) Something else? You know...about stories?
quote:
nor do angels bar man from anyplace on earth, as with eden
Why would they? There's nothing special about any other place on earth. The reason why Eden is guarded is because the Tree of Life is there and if humans were to eat from it, their apotheosis would be complete.
quote:
quote:
Incorrect. The text says the exact opposite. The animals are specifically created FOR THE USE OF ADAM TO FIND HIM A WIFE.
Exactly, and 'to find him a wife' means Eve was not yet seperated from Adam, and yet played no character role in the scene at this time.
But you've just ignored the fact that you made an error. You claimed that the animals were made [I][B]before[/i][/b] Adam was put in the garden. That isn't true. They were made after. This is in contradiction not only to historical fact but also in direct contradiction to Genesis 1. Considering that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by different people at different times in different cultures, it is not surprising to find that they tell contradicting stories.
quote:
One of the rules of understanding the OT is it is not chronological but contextual.
Incorrect. One of the rules of understanding the OT is that it is cobbled together from many different sources. But each source relates its tale chronologically. Genesis 2 is written chronologically: First god creates Adam, then creates plants and animals, then creates Eve. You're trying to say that when the Bible says that god took pity on Adam for being alone and created animals to be with him, what it's really saying is that god didn't create the animals for Adam to be with him because he had already created them in some non-discussed time and place.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Your logic is saying that those two lines should be reversed and the entire intent of Gen 2:18 needs to be discarded because it directly states that god creates the animals after he created Adam. You said, and I quote: "We know also from ch 2, the text, the animals emerged prior to Eve's emergence/seperation: this signifies a time prior to the garden placement of Adam." But that isn't what the text says. Genesis 2:18-19 clearly show that the animals emerged after.
quote:
While in ch 1 the generic created life forms are listed, chronologicslly and contextual to this created chronology, this chapter does not expound that the animals predated Eve's seperation from Adam
Irrelevant. We're not talking about the appearance of the animals with relation to Eve. We're talking about the appearance of the animals with relation to Adam. You directly stated that the animals were created in "a time prior to the garden placement of Adam." But the text directly contradicts that claim. God sees Adam is alone [I][B]and then[/i][/b] creates animals. Therefore, they cannot have been created [I][B]before[/i][/b] Adam was placed in the garden. And we know that Adam was already in the garden because in Gen 2:15, we are told that god put Adam in the garden.
quote:
quote:
Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. This is not surprising since Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct and separate creation myths from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text.
Your evidence?
The textual analysis of it. A big example of the evidence is that Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. That wouldn't be consistent with a single authorship. It is, however, consistent with a multiple authorship. And if we look at other mythologies of the time, we find parallels in other cultures.
Take, for example, the story of Noah. It's pretty much plagiarized from the myth of Ut-Naphishtim. And if you read the text, it is clear that it is two stories told simultaneously. That's why we see such bizarre things as Noah entering the ark twice, the number of animals being inconsistent from one verse to the next, that the ark lands twice, that the earth dries up twice, etc.
quote:
The sun's luminosity did not appear till the 4th cosmic day
Irrelevant. People are capable of distinguishing time without the sun. When the astronauts are up in the shuttle, they are orbiting the earth about once every 90 minutes. They see the sun rise and fall multiple times during a "day." That's because everybody knows what a "day" is.
The phrasing, "evening and morning," is indicative of a literal, 24-hour day. If you want to indicate a metaphorical, nebulous length of time, you don't phrase it that way.
quote:
That the days and nights you refer to are not 24-hour days is also supported in the psalms of David
Irrelevant. The Psalms are not referring to Genesis.
Besides, if you do go that route, you've got a problem: The plants are created before the sun. Plants cannot live without the sun. If a "day" is referring to thousands of years, how on earth did the plants manage to live without the sun?
quote:
The OT calendar is regarded the world's most accurate and exacting
Incorrect. First, there is no real "calendar" of the Old Testament. Second, the most accurate actual calendars of the ancient world is that of the Maya.
quote:
There is hatchet job. Everything in ch 1 and 2 are perfectly alligned.
You do realize that sentence one is directly contradicted by sentence two, yes? At any rate, Gen 1 and Gen 2 directly contradict each other.
The order of creation in Gen 1 is plants, animals, humans (both male and female). The order of Gen 2 is male human, plants, animals, female human.
quote:
This debate has been well handled generations ago with scholars.
Indeed. That's why we know that Gen 1 and Gen 2 were written by different people at different times from different cultures and thus, we are not surprised to see they contradict each other.
quote:
Ch 2 pointedly begins with 'AND' - signifying a continueing narrative.
Irrelevant. You must remember that there are no "chapters" or lines in Genesis. People who wrote it down arbitrarily put the breaks in. In fact, the Jewish and Christian versions of the texts have different line breaks and even have a different order of the books. For you to try and maintain some sort of cosmic significance over the placement of a single word in an arbitrary breakpoint is the height of silliness.
Remember: The Torah is an oral document. It's supposed to be spoken aloud.
quote:
quote:
That's because the Messiah does not die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.
The messiah is to be a man - an ordinary one, subject to all man's traits, same as with Moses, also a messiah of his generation.
Which is another reason why Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Jesus claimed to be god.
quote:
The criteria for a Messiah ID is listed copiously in Isaiah, whereby all factors must be evident.
And Jesus fulfills none of them. That's why Jews don't accept him as the Messiah.
Or are you saying Jews don't understand their own religion?
quote:
I agree this has not happened according to the OT rendition, while the NT demands a totally different premise.
Therefore, why would Christians care what the Jewish texts say? Why all the sturm and drang about Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Jews? If the Christians are simply making stuff up, why do they care what other people say?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 12-08-2007 5:34 AM IamJoseph 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