Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 3:58 PM
27 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, Larni, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,183 Year: 12,219/19,786 Month: 2,000/2,641 Week: 509/708 Day: 68/135 Hour: 6/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Reverse realm and contradictions of bible translation
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 15 of 118 (539364)
12-15-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by celestialGyoud
05-22-2009 5:42 PM


Please Clarify
Dear CrazyDiamond7,

First, thank you for your interest in Biblical Inerrancy; of all the topics dealing with the Bible, ‘Inerrancy’ is the most complex in my opinion.

I have a question for you; would you clarify:

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

“Protestant bible translation has brought up many contradictions which proceeded from the spiritual ordinances that were doctrine of the Catholicism.”

Are you saying that there are contradictions between what Catholicism teaches and what the Bible states? Or are you saying that different versions of the Bible contradict what original manuscripts state?

Thank you for your time and effort in these matters,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-22-2009 5:42 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by celestialGyoud, posted 12-16-2009 3:20 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 18 by Richh, posted 01-09-2010 6:25 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 62 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-25-2010 3:35 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 63 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-02-2010 2:14 PM JRTjr has responded
 Message 64 by JRTjr, posted 03-07-2010 3:51 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 64 of 118 (549438)
03-07-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JRTjr
12-15-2009 11:57 AM


Re: Please Clarify
JRTjr

Edited by JRTjr, : Meant to reply to CrazyDiamond7, not myself. ;-{


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JRTjr, posted 12-15-2009 11:57 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 65 of 118 (549443)
03-07-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by greyseal
02-11-2010 3:52 AM


Re: Not sure what else to expect
Dear Greyseal,

It is great to hear from you again.

I have to agree with you on your points in this posting.

Greyseal writes:

the amount of literary heavy-lifting done by most believers seems to be minimal

Unfortunately I have found this to be true about people across the board, not just the “believers”

--

Greyseal writes:

to pretend that translations change nothing than the language is a big mistake, and I think to pretend that whilst scribes are really, really good at what they do, to pretend that they can't make mistakes or would not make changes for any reason is foolish.

This is also so true. A direct translation ‘word for word’ (per say) would not make much sense especially with two completely unique languages.

However, I believe there may be a variable you may be overlooking.

If God is the author of the Bible (as the Bible claims), then would you not have to take into account God’s ability to keep the errors and tendencies of scribes to ‘add’ or ‘change things’ to a minimum?

--

Greyseal writes:

You still cannot use the bible to prove the bible

I can agree with this statement to a certain degree. There are many types or kinds of proofs in science.

For instance: Just because a book in the Old Testament names a city and then it is named again in the New Testament does not prove that that city actually existed. To prove the city actually existed you have to find references to that city in other ancient literature or find the remains of that city where the Bible claimed it would be. (I.E. as far as ‘accuracy’ and ‘inerrancy’ go your right that “You cannot use the bible to prove the bible”)

However, when working on understanding what a curtain passage is saying you do use different scriptures to prove (establish, demonstrate, verify, confirm) your hypotheses of what that scripture is saying. So, in that sense you do “use the bible to prove the bible

I realize that your point was the first definition ‘you can’t use the Bible to prove that what the Bible says is ‘historically’ or ‘scientifically’ accurate you must have external evidences’ I just wanted to clarify your blanket statement.

I pray this does not offend you,
JRTjr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by greyseal, posted 02-11-2010 3:52 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-09-2010 3:42 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 71 by greyseal, posted 03-13-2010 3:37 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 66 of 118 (549444)
03-07-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by celestialGyoud
05-22-2009 5:42 PM


Dear CrazyDiamond7,

Thank you for your Time and effort in these matters. It is great to see people interested in deciphering what is true (Factual) and what is faults (in error).

You state:

Protestant bible translation has brought up many contradictions which proceeded from the spiritual ordinances that were doctrine of the Catholicism.

The doctrine of the Catholicism inserted in the Scripture the belief that man can not have his hair grown long because he would be disgracing his head; a belief that has been proven false because it contradicts the scripture about the Nazarite vow.

(Message #1 05-22-2009 4:42 PM)

I have a few Questions about this:

Where is it written that “man cannot have his hair grown long”?

Are you saying that this is written in the Bible? (If so, where? If not, where?)

--

You state that this belief: “has been proven false because it contradicts the scripture about the Nazarite vow.

O.K. What does Scripture say about “the Nazarite vow”? {As my Grandmother says “Chapter’ and ‘Verse’ please”} :-}

JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-22-2009 5:42 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-08-2010 3:43 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 69 of 118 (549749)
03-10-2010 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by celestialGyoud
03-08-2010 3:43 PM


Re: What Catholicism teaches and what the Vow of the Nazarite states
Dear CrazyDiamond7,

Thank you for your response.

Again, you have given quotes, and given the versions that they are out of, but, you have failed to give the ‘Book’, ‘Chapter’, and ‘Verse’ of the Bible(s) you are quoting from.

However, putting that aside for now; your claim that these constitute a contradiction, I believe, is an over statement.

For it to be a ‘contradiction A’ you must have two things (in this case ‘statements’) that directly oppose each other.

In what way is the Nazarite requirement to humble himself before his God by not cutting his hair in contradiction with the statement that “14 Does not the native sense of propriety (experience, common sense, reason) itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor [humiliating and degrading] to him, ” (1 Corinthians 11: 14 Amplified Bible [/url] -->Amplified Bible )

To me it seams to dove tail quit well. If a man is to humbleB (humiliate) himself before his God one way of doing so is to not cut his hair; is it not?

P.S. Please, give ‘Chapter’, and ‘Verse’ of the Bible you are referring to in the book of Numbers; and what English translation.

Thank you again for your Time,
JRTjr

------------------------------------------

The Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. writes:


A.
Con•tra•dic•tion

–noun
1. The act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2. Assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. A statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. Direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. A contradictory act, fact, etc.

Origin:
1350–1400; ME contradiccioun (< AF) < L contrādictiōn- (s. of contrādictiō). See contradict, -ion

B.
Hum•ble
   /ˈhʌmbəl, ˈʌm-/ Show Spelled [huhm-buhl, uhm-] Show IPA adjective,-bler, -blest, verb,-bled, -bling.
–adjective
1.
not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.
2.
having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.
3.
low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home.
4.
courteously respectful: In my humble opinion you are wrong.
5.
low in height, level, etc.; small in size: a humble member of the galaxy.
–verb (used with object)
6.
to lower in condition, importance, or dignity; abase.
7.
to destroy the independence, power, or will of.
8.
to make meek: to humble one's heart.
Use humble in a Sentence
See images of humble
Search humble on the Web
Origin:
1200–50; ME (h)umble < OF < L humilis lowly, insignificant, on the ground. See humus, -ile

—Related forms
hum•ble•ness, noun
humbler, noun
hum•bling•ly, adverb
humbly, adverb
o•ver•hum•ble, adjective
o•ver•ble•ness, noun
o•ver•b•ly, adverb
quasi-humble, adjective
qua•si-b•ly, adverb
self-humbling, adjective
un•hum•ble, adjective
un•ble•ness, noun
un•b•ly, adverb
un•hum•bled, adjective

—Synonyms
1. unpretending, unpretentious. 2. submissive, meek. 3. unassuming, plain, common, poor. 4. polite. 6. mortify, shame, abash. 7. subdue, crush, break. Humble, degrade, humiliate suggest lowering or causing to seem lower. To humble is to bring down the pride of another or to reduce him or her to a state of abasement: to humble an arrogant enemy. To degrade is to demote in rank or standing, or to reduce to a low level in dignity: to degrade an officer; to degrade oneself by lying. To humiliate is to make others feel or appear inadequate or unworthy, esp. in some public setting: to humiliate a sensitive person.

—Antonyms
1, 2. proud. 3. noble, exalted. 4. rude, insolent. 6. elevate. 8. exalt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-08-2010 3:43 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-10-2010 2:32 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 72 of 118 (550414)
03-15-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by celestialGyoud
03-10-2010 2:32 PM


The Celestial?
Dear CrazyDiamond7,

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

When quoting the Words of truth, then to use the verse numbers (that they placed beside the eternal word) is calling them 'worthy of reverence in matters to the Spirit and is naming them as legitimate authority from above to rule over the Scriptures

So, you are saying that the “New International Version (©1984)”, the “New American Standard Bible (©1995)” and the “English Standard Version (©2001)”, that you pulled quotes from, are indeed “Words of truth” “the Scriptures” of the Most High?

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

The words 'before his god' fit into the same type of righteousness that came from the Scribes of early Yudaism and the copies of ancient testament they had made.

To do the same righteousness of the Scribes is believing in the lie that the Celestial would have ever sanctified the Generic term god and elohim.

To cover the lie with another lie is what the religions and doctrines of faiths do by using a capitalized 'g' or 'e' to camouflage the generic term god and elohim and then sanctify what the Celestial did not sanctify, because the service of the doctrines of faiths is to carry out the will of their father of belief--lie i.e. the dragon, a specialist on camouflages and in making one believe.

You clam that the “the Celestial” would not sanctify the use of “the Generic term god and elohim” however, apparently, He will sanctify the term “the Celestial”? You are, after all, using the generic term “the Celestial” in the same way that those evil “religions and doctrines of faiths” used “the Generic term god and elohim”; are you not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-10-2010 2:32 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-16-2010 4:36 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 74 of 118 (550656)
03-17-2010 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by celestialGyoud
03-16-2010 4:36 PM


So, your answer is “Yes”; Right?!?
Dear CrazyDiamond7,

CrazyDiamond7 writes:


JRTjr writes:

You are, after all, using the generic term 'the Celestial' in the same way that those evil “religions and doctrines of faiths” used “the Generic term god and elohim”; are you not?


-
The problem is 'elohim--god(s)' is not just a Generic term:
According to all Encyclopedias and biblical dictionaries that explain the origin of the Camel's name elohim/god(s), the generic term elohim/god(s) is not just a Generic term; it was a Common Generic designation for deities (calves, idols, heathen gods and baalim) in the Middle east on the days of MOSHEH.

So, your answer is “Yes”; Right?!?; After all the term “the Celestial” reflects the same generality as “elohim” {I.E. “The Celestial” is “a Common Generic designation for deities (calves, idols, heathen gods…)” }.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-16-2010 4:36 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-17-2010 5:01 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 75 of 118 (550701)
03-17-2010 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by greyseal
03-13-2010 3:37 PM


Re: Not sure what else to expect
Dear Greyseal,

Thank you again for you correspondences.

Are you complaining that “every single webpage for a hundred or so seemed to share not only religiosity, but also vocabulary, style, facts and source (singular) and appeared to be a carbon copy in all but name. ” or that “…amongst believers there is vehement disagreement over such a simple word as "yom"?

I would say that this is exactly why Scripture says to: “21… test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast. (1 Thessalonians 5:21 Amplified Bible)

See the Creator of the universes is not going to ask me what everyone else said or did; He is going to require an account of my actions from me.

In other words each person is responsible for their own thought, beliefs, and deeds.

Greyseal writes:

The bible in it's many forms is undoubtedly old, but the originals ARE lost, and older versions (dead sea scrolls for example) are different to the newer ones...

… You may hope this won't influence the bible, but history appears to tell us it already has and certainly will.

The variations between the different versions and between the ‘Dead See Scrolls’ and the modern ‘Canonized Bible’ are, surprisingly, small.

Randall Price put it this way: “The claim of the critics is that the many thousands of manuscripts, each with its own variants, have produced so many discrepancies in the New Testament Text that it is impossible to reconstruct the original. Therefore, we cannot really know what was written, let alone what happened, in the first century. Indeed, the 400,000-some variants estimated by Bart Ehrman appear to be a significant number of “errors.”

However, one key fact is that from the earliest copies to the latest copies (about 1400 years later) the New Testament increased only 2 percent (about 2500 words) in size. Since the earliest texts essentially agree with the latest texts, this indicates not only a small amount of growth but also an exceptionally stable process of transmission. ” {Searching for the Original Bible’ ©2007 by World of the Bible Ministries pg. 115}

Another interesting tidbit about these ‘variants’ is that, according to Dr. Price, some 75% of these ‘variants’ are “simply nonsense readings or differences in spelling (which was never standardized).

I am not sure what he means by “nonsense readings” but it is interesting that only 1% of these variants are “both meaningful and viable (affect the translation) ”; again according to Dr. Price. {‘Searching for the Original Bible’ ©2007 by World of the Bible Ministries pg. 116}

When you get into, what changes have been maid in the manuscripts we still have copies of, you start to realize that the differences are vary small. The Dead See Scrolls do not over turn or change one major doctrine of Biblical Christianity. If it did we would hear about it ‘day in’ and ‘day out’ from the media.

Greyseal writes:

I think that's why there was (and is) a movement towards trying to pull out the "lessons" (which definitely shapes the lessons themselves!) from the "historical" text, and treating the text itself as a parable more than a history lesson, which probably fed into the backlash that we see today in the 6-24hour-long-it-all-really-happened viewpoints held hard and fast by certain denominations.

I have found that, generally speaking, the reason people want to treat the Bible: “as a parable more than a history lesson” is that if they accept it as ‘the Word of God’ then they have to accept the authority of God over their lives. They use all kinds of excuses for not accepting the Bible as literal but once you boil it down it usually has more to do with their stubborn pride /I want to do things my way/ then any facts.

Greyseal writes:

I think it's easier for a non-believer to study such a phenomenon, since they have no preconceived notions that such a change can't happen...

Actually, many “non-believers” have studied these things and become believers because of the evidence.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf1 set out to disprove the Resurrection {and thus the Bible}. What he ended up doing is becoming one of the worlds leading apologists for the Christian faith.

Dr. Terry Watkins, Th.D. writes:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!

Dial-the-Truth Ministries

I became a ‘believer’ at fourteen, although I had gone to church with my family since before I was born. As a teenager (and into my early adulthood) I was plagued by the question: Is there evidence {scientific evidence} that refutes the Biblical claims?; and if so what should I do about that?

I am now in my early forties and I have not come across a single piece of ‘scientific evidence’ that refutes what the Bible says. However, I have found evidences that caused me to adjust my interpretation of what the Bible says.

{I try to be careful to look at what the ‘evidence’ says; and not the conjecture of Scientists and Theologians or my own prejudices}

Dr. Greenleaf put it this way:

Dr. Greenleaf writes:

In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction.

There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.

Testimony of the Evangelists

1. Simon Greenleaf

1783-1853, American legal writer, b. Newburyport, Mass. A member of the Maine bar, he won a high reputation for legal scholarship early in his career. With the admission (1820) of Maine as a state, he was elected to a term in the legislature and was appointed reporter of the Maine Supreme Court. In 1833 he resigned this position and accepted the invitation of Joseph Story to become a professor of law at Harvard. Much of the excellence of Harvard Law School is attributed to these two men. Greenleaf's Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vol., 1842-53) for many years was the standard American work on the subject. Another text used for many years was his revision (5 vol., 1849-50) of William Cruise's. {Digest of the Law of Real Property[/url] -->Digest of the Law of Real Property}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by greyseal, posted 03-13-2010 3:37 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 5:09 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 79 of 118 (551171)
03-21-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by celestialGyoud
03-17-2010 5:01 PM


Creator? God? The Celestial? Lord? Father?
Dear CrazyDiamond7,

Thank you for your continued correspondence with respect to this issue.

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

it was never about what the Generic term elohim means to you or any man
but what it means in the Scriptures as originally written

Actually, you stated: “To do the same righteousness of the Scribes is believing in the lie that the Celestial would have ever sanctified the Generic term god and elohim.(Message #70)

My Question back to you was: “You clam that thethe Celestialwould not sanctify the use ofthe Generic term god and elohimhowever, apparently, He will sanctify the termthe Celestial? You are, after all, using the generic termthe Celestialin the same way that those evilreligions and doctrines of faithsusedthe Generic term god and elohim; are you not?(Message #72)

See, the problem I am having here is that you claim that “the Celestial” would not have “…sanctified the Generic term god and elohim. ”; yet by virtue of using the “Generic term” “the Celestial” you are saying that the Creator of the universes would/has “sanctified the Generic term” “the Celestial”.

To put it a different way; If The Creator of the universes does not want us using the “Generic terms” ‘God’ or ‘Elohim’ to refer to Him then it stands to reason that He would also not want us to use the “Generic term” “the Celestial

However, sense the Creator of the universes has allowed the terms “God”, “Lord”, “Elohim”, “Father”, etc to be used in scripture for thousands of years I would say that He is not disturbed by there usage and therefore nether should we be.

Show me somewhere in the Sacred Hebrew text (Commonly known as the Torah) where the Creator of the universes requires us to only use one term when talking to or referring to Him and then your point is made. {And I bet that “the Celestial” will not be that one term; Which, has been my point all along.}

Thank you again,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-17-2010 5:01 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-22-2010 5:15 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 81 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-25-2010 4:55 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 84 of 118 (557467)
04-26-2010 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by celestialGyoud
03-02-2010 2:14 PM


‘A Price Paid’ or ‘a Free Offering’
Dear CrazyDiamond7,

I would like to comment on all of the points you make; however, Time does not allow, so I will only take the first (and what I believe to be the most important).

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

IT WAS NEVER ABOUT A LAMB BEING REQUESTED TO PAY A PRICE FOR YOUR SINS
BUT A LAMB BEING A FREE OFFERING TO PUT AN END TO ALL SINS.

ALSO IT WAS NEVER ABOUT A PRICE TO BE PAID NOR ANY PRICE IMPOSED BY THE LAW EITHER BUT A LAMB OFFERED AS A FREE AND SPONTANEOUS OFFER

This is not an ‘either or’ proposition. ‘23For the wages which sin pays is death, but the [bountiful] free gift of God is eternal life through (in union with) Jesus Christ our Lord.(Romans 6: 23 Amplified Bible)

The “FREE OFFERING” of the Lamb (the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross) “TO PUT AN END TO ALL SINS” is the price paid by the Lamb for all of our sin.

So, the cost of sin is death, Jesus freely (of His own will and volition {No one forced Him}) paid that price {i.e. the cost of our sin} in our place at the cross. If there was not price to be paid for sin; then why an “OFFERING TO PUT AN END TO ALL SINS.”?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-02-2010 2:14 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-14-2010 3:36 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 85 of 118 (557469)
04-26-2010 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by rockondon
03-30-2010 3:27 PM


Genesis Chapter #1 verses Chapter #2 ?
Dear Rockondon,

Please see my posting about What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?, Message 36.

Thank you for your participation,
JRTjr

Edited by AdminPD, : Corrected link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by rockondon, posted 03-30-2010 3:27 PM rockondon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by rockondon, posted 05-02-2010 1:05 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 93 of 118 (559070)
05-06-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by rockondon
05-02-2010 1:05 PM


Re: Genesis Chapter #1 verses Chapter #2 ?
Dear Rockondon,

The ‘Genesis 1 verses 2’ problem is not really “On Topic” in this string; However, I would like to discus it with you.

If you would like we could correspond via e-mail or apply for a ‘new topic’ status; however since this topic has already been closed I’m not sure they will allow us to re-hash it.

You may also want to go back to the ‘string’ I pointed you to and read the whole conversation between Crashfrog and myself. This may answer a few of the question you posted here.

Thank you again for your interest,
JRTjr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by rockondon, posted 05-02-2010 1:05 PM rockondon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AdminPD, posted 05-06-2010 12:20 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 95 of 118 (559272)
05-08-2010 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by AdminPD
05-06-2010 12:20 PM


Re: Genesis Chapter #1 verses Chapter #2 ?
Dear AdminPD,

Thank you for your offer. I did not know that a string could be re-opened.

I would be quit willing to participate if Rockondon wishes to discuses Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 further.

JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AdminPD, posted 05-06-2010 12:20 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2010 1:18 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 97 of 118 (559279)
05-08-2010 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by celestialGyoud
03-25-2010 4:55 PM


Re: Who First had the habit of saying 'As the god lord lives'?
Dear CrazyDiamond7,

Jeremiah **:** {44:26 for those of us not afraid of using a little indexing}, as you quoted from whatever translation of the Bible you are using, gives a perfect example of why modern day Bibles use “God”, “Lord”, “Elohim”, “Father”, etc in place of ‘The Name of the Great Creator’.

In this verse the term “god lord” is put in place of ‘Yah’Vah’ by the writer because the writer of the text did not want to even chance breaking the 2nd Commandment 1 {I.E. the writer substituted “god lord” for ‘The Name’ because it was ‘The Name of the Great Creator’ that they (those he was speaking against) were using when they would say “As the god lord lives.”}.

Just so there is no misunderstanding here; the Creator of the Universes was reproving the “man of Judah in all the land of Egypt” for using His Name (Yah’Vah) in vain not for using the term “god lord” in vain.

You really have to pay attention to your syntax here.

Thank you for your participation,
JRTjr

1 7 You shall not use or repeat the name of the Lord your God in vain [that is, lightly or frivolously, in false affirmations or profanely]; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. ( Amplified Bible)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-25-2010 4:55 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-10-2010 4:23 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 99 of 118 (559662)
05-11-2010 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by celestialGyoud
05-10-2010 4:23 PM


?
Dear CrazyDiamond7,

Nice to hear from you again, although I had hoped you would have commented on my post(s) instead of expanding your own point.

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

That is what the Hebrew bibles and the fragments demonstrate that they have been doing as righteousness, using the same common generic term god and elohim --god(s) for the Most High and at the same time for the images and deities.

I have a few questions about this statement:


  1. How many Hebrew Bibles are we talking about?
  2. “Fragments” of what exactly?
  3. What do you mean by the phrase: “doing as righteousness”?
  4. You say that “the Scribes” “translated EL (abbreviation of ELYON) as elohim” Did you get this information from a historical document; a book written by a scholar?
    1. Who told you that the scribes did this?

    2. Could you tell me what document(s)/book(s) you got this information from?

One last Question.

If, as you stated: “It is not a question of claiming which term would be the appropriate one for ELYON or The Most High” than why are you still insisting that “God”, “Lord”, “Elohim”, etc are some how inappropriate?

If there is nothing inappropriate about using these terms then why are you dwelling on what terms should and should not be used to refer to The Great Creator?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-10-2010 4:23 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019