Reverse realm and contradictions of bible translation

Message 76 of 118 (550730) 03-17-2010 5:01 PM

Reply to: Message 74 by JRTjr 03-17-2010 2:30 AM

-

Does the term 'the Celestial' reflect the same generality as 'god' and 'elohim'?

Of course many words and terms do reflect the same generality to them that make no distinction between what is from down; made by the hands of man: a god or elohim,

and the ONE FROM ABOVE that is not to be compared, THE HEAVENLY and eternal that said I AM THAT I AM

I AM THAT I AM also means 'Does not depend on anything to come into BEING',

-

Without presenting evidence (that is based on facts from scripture fragment) anyone can say that the word god or elohim means 'eternal' and 'heavenly',

and even the lie that had been created by many sites: that elohim would allegedly mean Mighty One(s)

However, 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,

Another view on the perspectives

After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against JISHRAEL and Ahaziah had fallen through the latticed window of his upper room in Samaria and was injured. So he sent messengers instructing them: Go inquire of Baal-zebub, the elohim of Ekron, if I will recover from this injury.

But the angel of JEHAVEH said to ELYJAH the Tishbite: Go and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, Is it because there is no ELYON [THE ONE THAT DECLARES] in JISHRAEL that you are going to inquire the word of Baal-zebub, the elohim of Ekron?

Therefore, this is what JEHAVEH says: You will not get up from your sickbed and you will certainly die. Then ELYJAH left. The messengers returned to the king, who asked them, Why have you come back? –– They replied, A man came to meet us and said: Go back to the king who sent you and declare to him: This is what JEHAVEH says: Is it because there is no ELYON [THE ONE THAT DECLARES] in JISHRAEL that you're sending these men to inquire of Baal-zebub, the elohim of Ekron?

Therefore, you will not get up from your sickbed and you will certainly die. The king asked them: What sort of man came up to meet you and spoke those words to you? They replied, A hairy man with a leather belt around his waist. He said, It's ELYJAH the Tishbite. So king Ahaziah sent a captain of 50 with his 50 men to ELYJAH. When the captain went up to him, he was sitting on top of the hill. He announced, man of elohim, the king declares: Come down!

ELYJAH responded to the captain of the 50: But if I am a man of ELYON [THE ONE THAT DECLARES], what will come down is a bolt of lightning from heaven to consume you and your 50 men. Then a discharge came down from heaven and consumed him and his 50 [men]. So the king sent another captain of 50 with his 50 men to ELYJAH. He took in the situation and announced, man of elohim, this is what the king says: Come down right now!--

ELYJAH responded to the captain of the 50: But if I am a man of ELYON [THE ONE THAT DECLARES], what will come down is a bolt of lightning from heaven and consume you and your 50 men. So a celestial lightning came down from heaven and consumed him and his 50 men.

Then the king sent a third captain of 50 with his 50 [men]. The third captain of 50 went up and fell on his knees in front of ELYJAH and begged him,

O holly man, please let my life and the lives of these 50 servants of yours be precious in your sight. Already the bolt of lightning has come down from heaven and consumed the first two captains of 50 with their fifties, but this time let my life be precious in your sight.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Message 77 of 118 (550732) 03-17-2010 5:09 PM

Reply to: Message 75 by JRTjr 03-17-2010 11:48 AM

Both.

One from experience on the intertubes, the other from this website. They are not exclusive.

From Wikipedia (yes, I'm lazy), quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

quote:

---

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

---

Now I'm no scholar, but these are words of people who are.

I don't agree with you there in all cases. I know that people can still believe that God has authority over their lives just as much without believing in the literal truth of all the bible, and it makes the differences easier to swallow (if it's just a story, within which is god's wisdom, then it matters far less that there are four differing accounts of the resurrection, it just matters that there WAS a ressurection, and so on). It allows them to say that god was better than the people who wrote about him - they can say that the wisdom of god was such that murder was always wrong, and that the stories about genocide and ethnic cleansing are actions of a barbaric people from a barbaric time that would not be justified now, and need not be. the story of Noah changes from mass extinction to parable of being faithful to the lord will see you through even impossible odds.

The fire-and-brimstone evangelicals call this watering down the message, but the "rational believers" see it as their way to reconcile obvious discrepencies (age and shape of earth, the reality of helio-centrism, evolution, and so on).

The only way you can deal with new facts is to incorporate or to ignore - or suppress.

I would submit that you incorporate and ignore as irrelevant where necessary (and I mean no offence when saying that). for example, we share a lot of common DNA with monkeys and apes, common descent and evolution is a fact; the believer can say many things to negate the naturalists' premise of natural abiogenesis, such as "god did it that way", or "god used evolution", otherwise the fact of evolution and shared DNA must be ignored or labelled as irrelevant. All it will require is a slight modification, an adjustment of the interpretation, or simply a statement that god is smarter than the writers of the bible.

I'm in my early thirties, and I would say almost the exact opposite as you; I have found many things that tell me the bible is not a history book, that many if not all of the accounts of the magical and non-magical occurences within are myth and legend and possibly not even based on real occurences, and that far from not having any scientific proof to deter faith, I have seen no scientific proof to reinforce it.

I remain agnostic, but on Dawkin's (I think it was) scale of 1 - 7 I rate myself a 5 or 6 because I see nothing that requires a god and nothing that proves there is a god.

In my email to you I asked about the issue with when Jesus was born - according to one entry, he was born 1 CE. According to another it was at the latest 4 BCE (and still another says that Jesus must have been 1-2 years old when the male babies were killed, so that makes it 6 BCE). The general view is that the former is wrong, but some refuse to acknowledge there IS a discrepancy, others provide an explanation why this interpretation is wrong, and still others say it was written by man, and when Jesus was born isn't important as much as that he was.

Still others see the bible as a story and nothing more, so the veracity of the accounts are of little matter, so exist or not, the accounts can differ as they are stories from two different authors supposedly about the same guy, and errors will occur.

Edited by greyseal, : I'm going to make sure I don't sound overly harsh in this rambling message i wrote last night in an attempt not to offend.

Message 78 of 118 (550838) 03-18-2010 4:49 PM

Reply to: Message 77 by greyseal 03-17-2010 5:09 PM

-

Just because religion and doctrines of faiths have been printing and publishing a corrupted mastercopy of scripture
that does not mean the original contents are lost.

The originals were set apart

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Message 79 of 118 (551171) 03-21-2010 4:14 PM

Reply to: Message 76 by celestialGyoud 03-17-2010 5:01 PM

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

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 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?” (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

Message 80 of 118 (551417) 03-22-2010 5:15 PM

Reply to: Message 79 by JRTjr 03-21-2010 4:14 PM

-

It is not a question of claiming which term would be the appropriate one for ELYON or The Most High,

the problem and matter is about not participating in that type of righteousness of the Scribes of early Yudaism,

1st. In the Scriptures there are evidences that the Most High did not sanctify the Generic term 'god' or 'elohim'

2nd. It's the Scripture that gives the understanding that the practice of using one generic term (god/elohim) for the calves and idols and then to use that same generic term in reference to the Eternal and Heavenly one, is a practice that came from the Scribes and only can belong to the righteousness of the Scribes.

So the question is not about claiming a thing or two about what names or what terms are the official or appropriate ones,

but of non-participation in lies and false witness that were embedded in the versions of bible that had been left to religion and doctrines of faiths, id est; bibles and mastercopies that were made by the spiritual ordinance of Litanies and were made accomplishing the lies, false witness and righteousness of the Scribes of early Yudaism.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Message 81 of 118 (551990) 03-25-2010 4:55 PM

Reply to: Message 79 by JRTjr 03-21-2010 4:14 PM

-

According to the books of the Prophets, the instruction of the Law is not about using more than one term.
IsaIah clears up that the instruction is about to regard the Most High as holly--separate

and that is what the Generic term 'god--elohim (gods)' isn't.

-

Speaking through IsaIah the Scripture says: 'Yahweh--Jehaveh of the Hosts you shall regard as HOLLY (Set Apart)'

(that is, Set Apart and Separate from the Generic term that the Most High used for the deities, baalim, elohim, calves and heathen gods)

-

Also JeremIah **:** clears up this,

Therefore hear the word of I AM (Yahveh), all you of Judah who dwell in the land of Egypt:

Behold, I have sworn by my great name, says Yahveh, that my name shall no more be invoked by the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, specifically the ones that have the habit of adjuring ‘As the god lord lives.’

-

Who first had the habit of saying 'As the god lord lives'?

They were the Scribes of early Yudaism and of religion (doctrines of faiths) whose righteousness continued to be as usual: of using for the Most High the same generic and common name (god and elohim) that the MOST HIGH uses when referring to their deities, calves and heathen gods.

-

Message 82 of 118 (552670) 03-30-2010 3:27 PM

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:18-22(Man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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 the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Genesis 1:20-21 (fowl came from the water)
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
Genesis 2:19 (fowl came from the ground)
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;

Genesis 7:17 (how long was the flood?)
And the flood was forty days upon the earth
Genesis 7:24
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:3
And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the one hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Genesis 8:13
In the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth.
Genesis 8:14
And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

Genesis 10:24 (Who is Salah's dad?)
And Arphaxad begat Salah.
Luke 3:35-36
Salah, which was the son of Cainan.

Genesis 11:1 (There is only one language)
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Genesis 11:6
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language
Genesis 10:5 (There are multiple languages)
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue.
Genesis 10:20
These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues.
Genesis 10:31
These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues.

Genesis 19:13 (Was sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by angels or the Lord?)
For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
Genesis 19:24
The LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.

Genesis 26:34 (Who was Bashemath's father?)
And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 36:2-3
Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and ... Bashemath Ishmael's daughter.

Genesis 28:5 (Who was Laban's father?)
And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padanaram unto Laban the son of Bethuel the Syrian.
Genesis 29:5
And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor?

Message 83 of 118 (557239) 04-24-2010 12:49 AM

Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

Message 84 of 118 (557467) 04-26-2010 2:21 AM

Reply to: Message 63 by celestialGyoud 03-02-2010 2:14 PM

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).

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.”?

Message 85 of 118 (557469) 04-26-2010 2:44 AM

Reply to: Message 82 by rockondon 03-30-2010 3:27 PM

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.

Message 86 of 118 (558574) 05-02-2010 1:05 PM

Reply to: Message 85 by JRTjr 04-26-2010 2:44 AM

Whether or not they are 'appropriate help meets' is irrelevant. In Genesis 1 (which you state is written chronologically) we are told that "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image." (Man is made after animals).
In Genesis 2 we see what you mentioned above - man was alone so God created animals. That is a contradiction. If you make tangential comments about "help meets" or writing chronologically, it is still a contradiction.

Genesis 1 claims that man and woman were created simultaneously, and after animals. Genesis 2 claims that man was made first, then animals, then women.
In Genesis 1 it says that man came after plants. In Genesis 2 it says that man came before plants. There's many more examples I could give.

Whoever wrote these separate accounts should have put more thought into it. Elementary school kids could have done a better job of making a harmonious account of creation, to think that someone with a godlike intellect was inspiring this book is absurd in my opinion.

Message 87 of 118 (558793) 05-04-2010 2:50 PM

Reply to: Message 86 by rockondon 05-02-2010 1:05 PM

quote:

---

Whoever wrote these separate accounts should have put more thought into it. Elementary school kids could have done a better job of making a harmonious account of creation, to think that someone with a godlike intellect was inspiring this book is absurd in my opinion.

---

A few hundred years later some scientists also theorize how and in what order things came into being and put their conclusions down in some form. They may or may not have read the earlier conclusions.

This process continues over the years.

If we take that first writing and then compare it with a theory from a few hundred years ago and we find they differ in their conclusions, do we say that those two writings contradict each other?

Message 88 of 118 (558800) 05-04-2010 3:28 PM

Reply to: Message 87 by purpledawn 05-04-2010 2:50 PM

We do, if both writings are held to be infallibly true.

Changing theories is certainly a valid explanation for why the difference should exist at all. But if both versions are said to be infallible, and yet they suggest a different order of events, then they are contradictory.

Message 89 of 118 (558814) 05-04-2010 5:49 PM

Reply to: Message 88 by Rahvin 05-04-2010 3:28 PM

quote:

---

We do, if both writings are held to be infallibly true.

---

quote:

---

Changing theories is certainly a valid explanation for why the difference should exist at all. But if both versions are said to be infallible, and yet they suggest a different order of events, then they are contradictory.

---

Message 90 of 118 (558820) 05-04-2010 7:16 PM

Reply to: Message 89 by purpledawn 05-04-2010 5:49 PM

You have to understand the literalist chain of thought. There is no evidence to support the more extraordinary claims of the Bible; frequently those claims contradict evidence. They need the whole thing to be divinely inspired in order to believe any of it- and they're already emotionally invested in believing it.

Their entire personal identity is wrapped up in this idea of being "Saved" by the blood sacrifice of Jesus. To believe that he died and rose from teh dead, they need to believe that the entire work is true. They need to believe in Original Sin in order for there to be a debt to be paid; they need Genesis to be completely true in order to believe in Original Sin.

If any part of the Bible is wrong or even just a metaphor, any part of it could be taken the same. If Genesis is metaphorical or wrong, there is no Original Sin, ergo no salvation.

Liberal Christianity is far more flexible, but for literalists, their need for the entire Bible to be literally true is deeply ingrained into their personal identity, sufficiently to ignore or rationalize any actual contradictions in teh text.